"CAN I SPEAK TO ALAN PLEASE?"

In December 2006, the excellent centre-lef Policy Network think-tank, published an e-pamphlet called: “Third Time Lucky? Lessons from New Labour’s 2005 Election Campaign“.

The authors were central players in ‘engineering’ Labour’s third successive (and arguably, its most difficult) General Election victory in 2005 - Matt Carter, Fiona Gordon, Philip Gould, Alan Milburn and Sally Morgan.


In his chapter of the pamphlet, ‘How Labour won the 2005 General Election’, Alan Milburn spelt out what lessons could be drawn from that victory and what, in particular, incumbent centre-left parties needed to do to stay in Government.


Milburn highlighted five imperatives for Labour to pursue during its Third Term in office:


“First, stay connected. This is the hardest task of all for an incumbent party of government. But the rise of right-wing populism in Western Europe and elsewhere is a reminder that a new politics – of identity – symbolized in issues like immigration and crime cannot be ignored by the centre-left. Investment in new means of campaigning – outside of election periods – is critical to getting messages directly through to key groups of voters on these and other issues.


“Second, turn incumbency to advantage. It is both a blessing and a curse. Make it an advantage by emphasizing, in a world of rapid change and mounting insecurity, the risks of radical change versus continuity in policy (on the economy, skills, technology, education and childcare) that help create security.


“Third, position in the centre ground of politics. In a world where deference has declined and traditional party loyalties hold less sway, electoral success goes to those who can genuinely demonstrate cross-class centre ground appeal.


“Fourth, emphasise values. Loyalties to institutions might be fading but belief in values remains strong. Finding dividing line policies that express a difference in values with opponents. Above all, ensure that policies are driven by politics and not the other way round.


“Fifth, face the future. Avoid the trap of incumbency by refusing to rest on your laurels. Always be on the side of reform. Conservatives conserve things. Centre-left parties change things. The longer the tenure of office the greater the need to keep changing.”


Wise words indeed. How Labour’s Leadership needs Alan Milburn ‘in the mix’ right now.


How I also wish Gordon Brown (and his long-time coterie) were humble and courageous enough to put the past behind them, embrace the wisdom and experience of the likes of Milburn, Stephen Byers and Charles Clarke.


Sadly it’s probably all too late. Arrogance and self-certainty has always been hard-wired into the psyche of Brown’s ‘people’. Bringing onboard those brilliant talents that kept Tony Blair afloat for all those years, would be a ‘mea cupla’ too far for the PM.

(This post first appeared on the Evidently Chickentown Blog on 23rd May 2008)

Display: Sort:

Re: "CAN I SPEAK TO ALAN PLEASE?" (#1)

Milburn certainly does have some good qualities which the leadership should be utilising. Can't do worse than the cronies currently at No. 10.

Re: "CAN I SPEAK TO ALAN PLEASE?" (#2)

If Milburn is Labour's saviour then the party is doomed.

Re: "CAN I SPEAK TO ALAN PLEASE?" (#3)

Is he still around? Haven't heard a word, comment or seen an appearance on TV in 2 years from him. Perhaps he is bideing his time. Waiting.

Re: "CAN I SPEAK TO ALAN PLEASE?" (#4)

Otware - bringing Alan Milburn to the fore would make us more doomed that we presently are, you mean? An interesting analysis. We are talking about the same Labour Party here, aren't we? I am talking about the one in the UK. Which one are you talking about?

Re: "CAN I SPEAK TO ALAN PLEASE?" (#5)

Jesus, if Alan Milburn ever comes near becoming leader, the party'll be slaughtered. He's living in a 90s dreamworld - people aren't scared of social democracy Alan, they never were. The 'centre ground' is mobile - we can drag it towards the left. Parties are based on sectional interests  - they are not supposed to appeal to everyone! Our supporters are turning away from us, and the idea that we need more New Labourism is just unbelievable...I really cannot understand this hopelessly un-ambitious mentality which thinks that any 'partisan' action for the poor alienates others. For pity's sake, we're supposed to favour our people, that's why we join the party! I can only repeat that New Labour was never necessary - we had a majority in this country for social democracy before Blair became leader. It's now 18 years since the end of the Soviet Union - people have moved on, yet New Labour still acts as though the party membership can't be trusted not to demand the nationalisation of WH Smiths. These 'wise words' from Alan Milburn are just a banal recitation of the same spurious arguments we've been hearing for 14 years - well you've failed, so let's try something new, eh?

Re: "CAN I SPEAK TO ALAN PLEASE?" (#6)

"The 'centre ground' is mobile - we can drag it towards the left."

We did drag it to the left.  Witness Cameron's support for the NHS.  We dragged it to the left, and Cameron has dragged the Tories's toes into it, de-toxifying themselves in the process.

But the direction of travel aka narratives!  Cameron is travelling progressively left/liberalist, and New Labour progressively right/authoritarian.  Whoops!  Who's the nasty party now? 

 

Re: "CAN I SPEAK TO ALAN PLEASE?" (#7)

If your definition of failure is the longest-serving Labour government in history, then how do you define the previous Labour administrations which couldn't even survive two full terms without getting booted out by the electorate?

Re: "CAN I SPEAK TO ALAN PLEASE?" (#8)

My definition of failure? Rising inequality and council house waiting lists, a failure to get to grips with poverty and a general failure to put the interests of the poor and the working class at the heart of every single policy - just for starters. We had a vast majority for two terms, we could've done so much - we could've changed the face of Britain as Thatcher and Atlee did; instead we have tinkered at the edges, smoothing some rough bits, but leaving the bulk of the injustices in society untouched. Failure is quantifiable by what could have been achieved: by that measure, New Labour has been the most wasteful government we've ever seen. Staying in power is not a measure of success when you think (wrongly) that in order to do so you must abandon your values - that was insanity, and yet they've continued it for a decade. It's so sad when you think what might have been achieved.

Re: "CAN I SPEAK TO ALAN PLEASE?" (#9)

This country is far, far better now than what it was in 1997.

Yes, the government should have probably done more with its big majorities, but it depends what that 'more' involves.

If it involves what you're calling for - ie. cutting abortion time limits, banning gay adoption and bringing back nationalisation then no thanks.

Re: "CAN I SPEAK TO ALAN PLEASE?" (#10)

Come on, that's just disingenuous - I've always been clear that my priorities are tackling poverty and inequality. My stance on abortion has a strong moral foundation, and I don't favour banning gay adoption, I was simply arguing for evidence-based policy. I would only support nationalisation to the extent that a) it increased efficiency and improved service provision/access (e.g by cross-subsidisation for rural buses), b) it promoted the goals of reducing inequality (e.g. fuel poverty) and enhancing democracy and c) it allowed us to have greater control over other aspects of policy such as the environment (though increased investment in renewables and public transport, which the market has little motivation to do). And I agree the country is far better now - but it's not fundamentally different: Thatcher changed the British mindset, and we've allowed that individualism to continue.

Re: "CAN I SPEAK TO ALAN PLEASE?" (#11)

However NM, the country is more social-democratic than the government thinks. For the first time in many decades, if ever, a majority are for non-proliferation. Over two-thirds favour elements of co-determination, and redistribution of wealth. There is a genuine progressive streak that has failed to be exploited in many areas.