This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/28/new-labour-david-miliband

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
What New Labour will do … when it rises from the dead What New Labour will do … when it rises from the dead
(6 months later)
Like most significant political ideas, New Labour expired in a back room while vigorous efforts were being made to assert its continued vitality to the audience. It died sometime in late 2007, as the British economy teetered on the edge of recession. The cause of death is disputed. It was not excess of exuberance – New Labour did not spend ludicrously too much (it did spend too much, but by only a little, and even then, mostly on worthwhile things) – nor the inflation and bursting of a bubble (New Labour was involved no more than anyone else in the developed world) nor the capitulation to neoliberal dogma (for all the talk of changed paradigms, the left still seems to believe in free movement of people, goods, and money).Like most significant political ideas, New Labour expired in a back room while vigorous efforts were being made to assert its continued vitality to the audience. It died sometime in late 2007, as the British economy teetered on the edge of recession. The cause of death is disputed. It was not excess of exuberance – New Labour did not spend ludicrously too much (it did spend too much, but by only a little, and even then, mostly on worthwhile things) – nor the inflation and bursting of a bubble (New Labour was involved no more than anyone else in the developed world) nor the capitulation to neoliberal dogma (for all the talk of changed paradigms, the left still seems to believe in free movement of people, goods, and money).
No, New Labour was killed off not by the accession of Gordon Brown, or the departure of Tony Blair, but by the sudden end of an era of 63 consecutive quarters of economic growth. At that point, the compromise that New Labour offered social democrats and market buccaneers – that it was possible to have both a strong, growing state and a political environment that encouraged business choice – suddenly became less than viable.No, New Labour was killed off not by the accession of Gordon Brown, or the departure of Tony Blair, but by the sudden end of an era of 63 consecutive quarters of economic growth. At that point, the compromise that New Labour offered social democrats and market buccaneers – that it was possible to have both a strong, growing state and a political environment that encouraged business choice – suddenly became less than viable.
Currently, that debate doesn't even feel particularly important. One of the strange things about being in an extended global slump is that the position of the "neoliberal" becomes, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from that of the traditional tax-and-spender in the short term. Something has to be done and, away from the austere rigour of the Mellonites and the Austrian school, , that something involves printing, borrowing and spending money. Lots of money. Lots and lots of money. Effectively, normal political discourse is suspended while we try to restore economic growth.Currently, that debate doesn't even feel particularly important. One of the strange things about being in an extended global slump is that the position of the "neoliberal" becomes, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from that of the traditional tax-and-spender in the short term. Something has to be done and, away from the austere rigour of the Mellonites and the Austrian school, , that something involves printing, borrowing and spending money. Lots of money. Lots and lots of money. Effectively, normal political discourse is suspended while we try to restore economic growth.
What does this mean for Labour? It means that going around muttering about tough choices appears both politically cliched and economically redundant (I know, because I've muttered with the best of them). For now, for the next couple of years, there aren't any tough choices. The correct policy response is a leftish comfort blanket. The Tories are stupid and wrong and spending money is the right way to go, and there's nowhere else for money to go for now but gilts, and just, gosh, let's party like it's 1937.What does this mean for Labour? It means that going around muttering about tough choices appears both politically cliched and economically redundant (I know, because I've muttered with the best of them). For now, for the next couple of years, there aren't any tough choices. The correct policy response is a leftish comfort blanket. The Tories are stupid and wrong and spending money is the right way to go, and there's nowhere else for money to go for now but gilts, and just, gosh, let's party like it's 1937.
Sure, we can argue about immigration, or public service structuring, or some such but, basically, the question New Labour answered just isn't being asked right now. There's no need for the left to worry about the most equitable way of sharing proceeds of growth, because there ain't no damn growth, and that is the only problem that really matters.Sure, we can argue about immigration, or public service structuring, or some such but, basically, the question New Labour answered just isn't being asked right now. There's no need for the left to worry about the most equitable way of sharing proceeds of growth, because there ain't no damn growth, and that is the only problem that really matters.
Were a Labour government in power right now, even a fiscal hawk like me would be urging Ed Balls on, demanding bigger VAT cuts, lower corporation tax rates, even some "Collect £200, proceed directly to the shops, do not pass Go" Super-Monopoly card for the low paid. Actually, what I'd probably be saying would be: "No, spend more on vocational education, and infrastructure, and an industry bank, and on tax breaks for companies in the north, and on universities, and R&D", because I'm cussed, and something of a bore. What joy it is to be on the left today!Were a Labour government in power right now, even a fiscal hawk like me would be urging Ed Balls on, demanding bigger VAT cuts, lower corporation tax rates, even some "Collect £200, proceed directly to the shops, do not pass Go" Super-Monopoly card for the low paid. Actually, what I'd probably be saying would be: "No, spend more on vocational education, and infrastructure, and an industry bank, and on tax breaks for companies in the north, and on universities, and R&D", because I'm cussed, and something of a bore. What joy it is to be on the left today!
But here's the catch. This happy state of suspended economic reality will not last. The wonder of global capitalism is such that not even a government as bone-headedly, wilfully stupid as that led by David Cameron will be able to stop growth returning eventually. All they can do is delay it, and leave us in a weaker, more vulnerable position when the recovery eventually comes.But here's the catch. This happy state of suspended economic reality will not last. The wonder of global capitalism is such that not even a government as bone-headedly, wilfully stupid as that led by David Cameron will be able to stop growth returning eventually. All they can do is delay it, and leave us in a weaker, more vulnerable position when the recovery eventually comes.
When it does, the question of choices will become relevant again. When will this be? Let's be pessimistic, and say no significant growth occurs until 2015, leaving the next Labour government with a pretty unpleasant inheritance. We'll have a big debt and a stubbornly high deficit. Other countries will be growing faster than us, and so there will be places to invest more attractive than gilts. That implies there won't be a lot of room for stimulus, and the costs of failure will mean that even to reduce the deficit gradually over the 2015-20 parliament will require iron fiscal discipline.When it does, the question of choices will become relevant again. When will this be? Let's be pessimistic, and say no significant growth occurs until 2015, leaving the next Labour government with a pretty unpleasant inheritance. We'll have a big debt and a stubbornly high deficit. Other countries will be growing faster than us, and so there will be places to invest more attractive than gilts. That implies there won't be a lot of room for stimulus, and the costs of failure will mean that even to reduce the deficit gradually over the 2015-20 parliament will require iron fiscal discipline.
If we're not to enact absurdly painful spending cuts, that probably means tax rises. Even within that, there will be huge pressures on what to spend our limited resources on. Do we try and protect services spending, or do we try to invest in future growth potential, via the sort of innovation-friendly new-industrial agenda Labour has been quietly developing through it's policy review?If we're not to enact absurdly painful spending cuts, that probably means tax rises. Even within that, there will be huge pressures on what to spend our limited resources on. Do we try and protect services spending, or do we try to invest in future growth potential, via the sort of innovation-friendly new-industrial agenda Labour has been quietly developing through it's policy review?
It's at this point that a very different New Labour political position will begin to be relevant to our politics. It won't be as optimistic as the early Blair era, or as bombastically self confident as the triumphal tractor statistics of 2006. Indeed, it might be positively dour and earnest, with only the slimmest of sugar coatings to get the medicine down.It's at this point that a very different New Labour political position will begin to be relevant to our politics. It won't be as optimistic as the early Blair era, or as bombastically self confident as the triumphal tractor statistics of 2006. Indeed, it might be positively dour and earnest, with only the slimmest of sugar coatings to get the medicine down.
I'm about as rightwing as they come in the Labour party. As a junior new Labourite, I got used to being called a shallow populist and an electoral sell-out. Now, though, the most relevant critique is the complete opposite. I tell people what I think a Labour government will have to choose between, how hard it'll probably have to cut and how much it'll have to tax to do even the smallest bit of good, and they shrink in horror, asking "How on earth do we sell that?".I'm about as rightwing as they come in the Labour party. As a junior new Labourite, I got used to being called a shallow populist and an electoral sell-out. Now, though, the most relevant critique is the complete opposite. I tell people what I think a Labour government will have to choose between, how hard it'll probably have to cut and how much it'll have to tax to do even the smallest bit of good, and they shrink in horror, asking "How on earth do we sell that?".
So, New Labour is dead, but it'll be back. I suspect though, that we'll emerge from the political suspension of the slump as a small bunch of flint-eyed, tight-fisted zealots planning an austere recovery, not grinning populists disbursing growth-funded goodies. It'll be less sexy, but probably better politics. (Think of the Swedish Social Democrats, 1994 style, who proposed faster deficit reduction than the right while the economy grew)So, New Labour is dead, but it'll be back. I suspect though, that we'll emerge from the political suspension of the slump as a small bunch of flint-eyed, tight-fisted zealots planning an austere recovery, not grinning populists disbursing growth-funded goodies. It'll be less sexy, but probably better politics. (Think of the Swedish Social Democrats, 1994 style, who proposed faster deficit reduction than the right while the economy grew)
As to how to sell such unpleasant medicine – well, we have to find a way. After all, the alternative is being François Hollande. We don't like to talk about him any more.As to how to sell such unpleasant medicine – well, we have to find a way. After all, the alternative is being François Hollande. We don't like to talk about him any more.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.