An oasis of politics in a sea of turmoil
I have been a more than usually useless blogger recently. I have been completely sidetracked by my lecture on 21st century enlightenment, which is quite literally causing me sleepless nights as I veer from euphoric mania to teeth grinding despair. The plan now is to update the wiki with a full first draft by the end of next Monday. Someone innocently asked me the other day why exactly I perform an annual lecture. Being entirely unable to answer I had to go and sit in a darkened room for several hours to recover.
In as much as I have been noticing the world around me a few thoughts have glided past my fevered brow….
Yesterday we had a fascinating presentation here at the RSA by Stan Greenberg, a pollster not just to Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, but to a wide variety of parties across the world, including ones on the right. He had conducted a comprehensive poll of voters in the days immediately after the election.
His presentation left me with three thoughts: given that public opinion currently favours left of centre over right of centre attitudes on key issues (tax increases rather than service cuts, protect the state don’t shrink it) and given that there doesn’t seem to be much awareness of, or enthusiasm for, the Tory ‘big society not big state’ agenda:
a) Does this mean that David Cameron, far from underperforming, did incredibly well to win despite the general mood?
b) What will happen to the LibDems? On the one hand, public preferences and the tendencies of its supporters suggest that being a coalition partner with a right of centre party will prove very damaging. On the other hand, Stan argued that the LibDems could ‘own’ the political reform part of the coalition agenda while the Conservatives own the fiscal discipline side. Stan also argued that across most of Europe the party that establishes itself as ‘new politics’ and attracts younger voters (mainly the LibDems here but often the Greens abroad) usually maintains its strength despite cyclical shifts.
c) Given that Labour would almost certainly now be leading a centre left coalition Government if it had had another leader (Stan explicitly confirmed this) will it prove hard for Labour members to be enthusiastic about anyone implicated either in supporting Gordon Brown or failing to take the opportunity to oust him (OK this does rule out the whole former cabinet but maybe it’s time to skip two generations!)?
Being an enthusiast for collaboration I am, along with most other people, fascinated to see how the coalition does and we will be sending out invitations in the next few days to hear new ministers lay out their plans in the areas most relevant to the Society’s work.
The end of an era
It is a new era. As regular readers will know, I have been told to keep political commentary to a minimum on this site but as it feels like a turning point for me too maybe I can be excused one more time.
Despite my own personal political affiliations it is difficult not to be excited by the idea of coalition government. After all this had been Tony Blair’s plan if he had faced a much smaller majority in 1997 – rather negotiate with Liberal Democrats than be in hoc to Labour’s left wing.
My instinct is that either things will go wrong very quickly for the coalition or they will, as the ruling Parties hope, last a full Parliament. This will depend on events, personalities and, as I argued on Monday, the relationship between leaders who want to stay in power and MPs and activists who may find the compromises of office very uncomfortable.
In terms of our political culture an important question will be how the LibDems and Tories handle their differences. If they are willing to be reasonably frank about them and invite the public to engage in the debate, we really could see a more open and elevating type of politics. If, however, the debates are suppressed only to emerge in hostile press briefings, then the standing of our representative democracy could fall further still. The Osborne Cable pairing will be particularly fascinating in this regard. In many ways, it reminds me of the ill starred welfare reform partnership of Harriet Harman and Frank Field between 1997 and 1998 – let’s hope it does a great deal better.
As for me this is the time to hang up my boots as a pundit and occasional political advisor (out of working hours I hasten to add). It will be interesting to observe the Labour leadership contest and David Miliband will hope history repeats itself (in leadership elections the person who starts favourite for Labour usually wins while Tory favourites usually lose). The one bit of advice I would give to all the contenders is politely to distance themselves from the New Labour old guard, whether that is big beasts like Campbell and Mandelson or small fry like yours truly.
As for the RSA I believe we are entering a really exciting period. Our non-aligned political position is not only in keeping with our traditions but just right for the times. At our Trustees meeting yesterday we had excellent presentations on our Peterborough and Connected Communities projects. The RSA doesn’t just talk about the Big Society – we are doing the thinking and innovation that aims to make community renewal and deeper civic engagement real.
So it’s kind of poignant to look back across the whole cycle, starting with my first canvassing session – for Douglas Jay (who had himself been MP for Battersea North for over 30 years) in the 1979 election, through the 18 years of opposition and then the 13 years of Labour government and back out again. But one of the lessons of all that time has been that real enduring social change is as likely to start from outside Government as from the plans of politicians. I don’t know how the coalition government will do but I am certain the RSA is going to make a big impact in the years ahead.
Why MPs don’t want power
Being focused on my annual lecture and trying to avoid election commentary in my blog, I have been posting a lot less recently. Mind you, maybe I should stop entirely. This morning someone called Wendy Smith attached this comment to a very old post:
“Many years ago I read a quote from you and it made me so angry at your arrogance that I kept a copy – We have a citizenry which can be caricatured as being increasingly unwilling to be governed but not yet capable of self government. Well these peasants showed you mate didn’t they? Unfortuntely [sic] I expect your [sic] still around taking tax payers money and treating them with contempt”
I’m not sure whether to be worried that I have caused a stranger such ire or gratified that Ms Smith has kept my quote pinned on her mental cork board for several months. I have to admit to being unclear why the result on Thursday qualifies as a declaration of self government by the people. To be sure, the result suggests that no party has the confidence of most voters. Then again, Labour in 2005 got exactly the same proportion of votes as the Conservatives last Thursday and achieved a healthy majority. So the result is as much a reflection of the quirks of the voting system as a failure of public decisiveness.
Just to ensure my infamy lives on in the Smith household (after all if there is one thing worse than being talked about cruelly it is not being talked about at all), I will further impugn the electorate’s judgement by remarking on the voters’ tendency to condemn politicians for not being honest about problems (e.g. the deficit, illegal immigration) while at the same time showing no enthusiasm for any credible solution. This is why the one thing all parties have in common is an insufficient mandate for the decisions that will surely soon have to be taken.
As someone who is fascinated by the structural characteristics of membership organisations, I have only one small point to add to pages of speculation in today’s press. The divide at work in these negotiations is not only between parties, ideologies or policy preferences, it is also between putative ministers and MPs.
For the former the incentive to be in power is status, salary and, most of all, access to the levers of power. Whereas for the latter, not only is the difference in day to day life between being a Government MP and an opposition MP not that great but, arguably, it is more comfortable being able to criticise than having to defend the Government. This difference between the personal interests of leaders and followers may help to explain why all the party leaderships are trying to achieve a deal while many MPs and activists would prefer the purity of principled opposition. Part of what is played out in Whitehall and Westminster is simply a reflection of the general problem in organisations of getting rank and file support for reforms that makes leaders’ lives easier.
Party like it’s 1991?
I found myself on Newsnight yesterday debating election promises with Danny Finkelstein from The Times. I say ‘debating’, but we were so in agreement that among the abusive text messages I received on the way home was one reading ‘why don’t you and that bloody Tory get married?’ This is an outrageous suggestion: Danny already has a wife.
The Conservatives’ problems over tax raise the question of whether 2009 is most like 1991, before the ruling Party scored a stunning victory, or 1996, just before the Opposition won a landslide. Try these three key indicators:
State of the country
Just like in 1991, the economy, public and family finances of 2009 are in a mess. In 1996 we were three years out of recession. People may not feel this is a time to take risks. In 1996 there was a powerful feeling that people wanted a fundamental change of direction in society. In 2009 people are angry with the Government but it isn’t clear they are rejecting Labour values in the visceral way they recoiled against Conservativism in 1996.
Verdict: 2009 more like 1991
Standing of the leaders
David Cameron hasn’t hit the heights of popularity attained by Tony Blair in opposition but he isn’t that far short, with a current rating from MORI of plus 22%. He is certainly considerably more credible with the voters than was Neil Kinnock. Gordon Brown has not plumbed the depths of John Major in 1996 (although Major was generally ahead of his Party in the polls) but he is a long way behind Major in 1991.
Verdict: 2009 more like 1996
Mindset of the parties
This isn’t easy to call. Although the Labour Party is hollowed out in many parts of the country, just as the Conservatives were in 1996, sitting MPs tell me they can still get people out canvassing and leafleting. More importantly, the vast majority of Labour politicians and members remain hungry to win again. This is in stark contrast to senior Tories in 1996, most of whom had given up on the next election and were much more interested in fighting about Europe than taking on Blair.
On the other hand, the tax row over the last few days suggests there is still a significant group of Conservatives who put ideological rigour above political pragmatism. To suggest that the Conservatives commit themselves to major tax cuts for the most well off during a deep recession and on the verge of a crisis in public expenditure is surely barking. But it is also the firmly held position of a cluster of commentators around The Telegraph, The Spectator and the lively Conservative blogosphere. In having still to keep one eye on his Party faithful, while trying to woo a not quite convinced electorate, Osborne and Cameron share more in common with the dilemmas of Kinnock and Smith than the untrammelled authority of Blair and Brown.
Verdict: On balance, 2009 is more like 1991.
Two things drop out of this analysis: First, that 2010 will probably be somewhere between 1991 and 1996, which may be why most people I speak to predict the Conservatives will be the largest party but not, perhaps, with an overall majority; second, the reliance of the Conservatives on the leadership dimension. If Cameron were to lose credibility and Brown to gain it, the Conservatives would lose the one dimension with clear parallels to the New Labour landslide David Cameron wants so much to emulate.
The Brown bounce – how high can it go?
How long can Brown
Last august when Labour was hitting new lows in the polls and rumours were rife of a plot against Gordon Brown, despairing ministers were willing to vent their spleen at any passing comrade. One I spoke to was dismissive of the view that Brown’s unpopularity was simply a reflection of bad presentation. ’The public may say that don’t like Gordon for superficial reasons’ he said’ but deep down they see him saying one thing and doing the reverse. So, he says he’s for prudence and the long term but he seems to throw money at political problems. He says he’s for a new politics and a big tent but number ten spits out poisonous briefings and he played fast and loose over the election timing. He says he’s for social justice but he puts inheritance tax cuts ahead of child poverty’.
A few days ago walking up Whitehall I met the same minister. He was almost jaunty. As we parted he said ‘who would have thought it? All to play for in 2009′.
The general interpretation of Gordon Brown’s recovery from lost cause to fighting chance is that it is inevitable that we should rest our hopes on the captain when we fear the ship is sinking. But there is more to it than this. As I have said before – drawing on a category form cultural theory - Brown is an instinctive hierarchist. This is a problem in the individualist culture that was until recently dominant. Thus Brown’s often hapless attempts to seem like a perfectly ordinary type of guy and the disjunction between his stated values and political expediency.
But now the world has come back to Brown. We crave hierarchy. Suddenly even bankers and free market enthusiasts are fans of regulation (see Daniel Finkelstein this morning for example). So much do we want someone to be in charge that we would rather give them the benefit of the doubt (a rare stance from voters) than succumb to the fear of chaos. Brown is a confirmed statist at a time when we are more willing than for a generation to admit we need strong government.
Brown has also been helped by the Conservative strategy, enabling Labour to focus on today’s policy differences rather than the the Government’s record, and giving its MPs an external enemy. Last summer when comparing Brown’s plight to that of John Major, I contrasted Labour’s comparative unity and continued desire to win with Major’s hopelessly split Party many of whose key figures cared more about winning the row over Europe than winning at the polls. This strength for Labour has been underlined by Brown’s appointment of Peter Mandelson and the cabinet’s determination to stay in the centre ground, willing to take on the left on issues such as civil liberties, the post office and welfare reform. This is vital to rebut the charge that Labour’s borrow and spend economic strategy is simply a reversion to type.
Four out of the last six general elections have been called after a four year term. So Labour could defend a spring 2009 eelection as being perfectly normal (anyway, once the election is called the row over timing is only ever a one day story, especially as the opposition parties have themselves called for an early election). If I were forced to predict an outcome of such an election I would plump for a hung Parliament with the Conservatives winning several seats in the South but failing to make significant inroads elsewhere.
Given the underlying problems of being a third term Government, the recession and the largely successful de-toxification of the Tory brand this may be the best Labour can expect. But would Gordon go for it? In a perceptive piece reminding us that Brown pulled out of a fight with Blair in 1994 and worked hard to deter challengers in 2007, Iain Martin of the Telegraph asks ‘Is Gordon Brown frightened of elections?’. It is highly unlikely that between now and June 2010 Labour will have anything that looks like a safe lead. It would take a combination of strategic certainty and political daring to call an early election when behind in the polls. There are few people capable of convincing a naturally cautious Prime Minister of such a case – but one of them is now his closest political advisor.
grtqes
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.