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.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/diamond-labour-policy-leadership

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

Version 0 Version 1
The risk for Labour is permanent irrelevance The risk for Labour is permanent irrelevance
(about 1 hour later)
Labour’s present crisis is of fundamental purpose. It has no widely shared understanding of what it is for, or what the party exists to achieve. As a result, the leadership contest has descended into a narrow and constraining debate about the micro-detail of policy. That predicament, a deep underlying confusion about basic political objectives, is afflicting social democratic parties across Europe: torn between being traditional communitarian parties with a distinctive connection to the working-class, and liberal cosmopolitan parties who embrace the diversity of modern society but don’t fulfil their historic role of providing a bulwark against global capitalism.Labour’s present crisis is of fundamental purpose. It has no widely shared understanding of what it is for, or what the party exists to achieve. As a result, the leadership contest has descended into a narrow and constraining debate about the micro-detail of policy. That predicament, a deep underlying confusion about basic political objectives, is afflicting social democratic parties across Europe: torn between being traditional communitarian parties with a distinctive connection to the working-class, and liberal cosmopolitan parties who embrace the diversity of modern society but don’t fulfil their historic role of providing a bulwark against global capitalism.
It isn’t untenable for a political party to retain both liberal and communitarian instincts (as Labour did under Attlee, Wilson and Blair), but there has to be honesty about where the tensions lie.It isn’t untenable for a political party to retain both liberal and communitarian instincts (as Labour did under Attlee, Wilson and Blair), but there has to be honesty about where the tensions lie.
Related: The Observer view on the Labour leadership election | Observer editorial
Until the existential question about Labour’s core purpose is confronted, the party will continue to flounder. Labour has a future because society and social attitudes are moving in direction that ought to be consistent with centre-left values: of sharing and co-operation, combining personal fulfilment and autonomy with the deep desire for connection and solidarity in an age of interdependence.Until the existential question about Labour’s core purpose is confronted, the party will continue to flounder. Labour has a future because society and social attitudes are moving in direction that ought to be consistent with centre-left values: of sharing and co-operation, combining personal fulfilment and autonomy with the deep desire for connection and solidarity in an age of interdependence.
There is little love for the Tories, even in conservative middle England. But Labour won’t succeed in a changing Britain unless it can completely overhaul its strategy, message and organisation to provide renewed justification for its existence.There is little love for the Tories, even in conservative middle England. But Labour won’t succeed in a changing Britain unless it can completely overhaul its strategy, message and organisation to provide renewed justification for its existence.
Addressing the question of purpose head-on ought to the first task for whoever is elected as the next Labour leader. They need to instigate a fundamental review of the party’s aims and its organisation. No question should be off the table: some of this revitalisation is about ideological purpose. Clause 4 needs to be rewritten. The party requires a positive statement of aims and values: the “new” clause 4 produced by Blair and Prescott in 1995 was about jettisoning the party’s obsolete commitment to wholesale nationalisation. The Clause 4 we need today has to be a modern affirmation of social democratic values as a marriage of social justice and individual freedom augmented by a commitment to internationalism and environmental sustainability. Rather than leaping straight into a debate about its 2020 manifesto, Labour needs a wide ranging review of its broader ambitions for society involving people outside the party, not least through dialogue with liberals, greens, and the nationalist parties. Addressing the question of purpose head-on ought to the first task for whoever is elected as the next Labour leader. They need to instigate a fundamental review of the party’s aims and its organisation. No question should be off the table: some of this revitalisation is about ideological purpose. Clause 4 needs to be rewritten. The party requires a positive statement of aims and values: the “new” clause 4 produced by Blair and Prescott in 1995 was about jettisoning the party’s obsolete commitment to wholesale nationalisation.
Related: Demoralised, dejected and defeated, Labour faces a fight for its very existence
The Clause 4 we need today has to be a modern affirmation of social democratic values as a marriage of social justice and individual freedom augmented by a commitment to internationalism and environmental sustainability. Rather than leaping straight into a debate about its 2020 manifesto, Labour needs a wide ranging review of its broader ambitions for society involving people outside the party, not least through dialogue with liberals, greens, and the nationalist parties.
It needs to reach out to new sources of energy in civil society.It needs to reach out to new sources of energy in civil society.
Labour has to recreate the broad-based movement for constitutional and political renewal it forged in the early 1990s.Labour has to recreate the broad-based movement for constitutional and political renewal it forged in the early 1990s.
Some of the renewal of purpose is inevitably about political organisation: how are candidates selected to ensure a diverse base of political representation; how can Labour update and revitalise the link between the party, the trade unions and the world of work; how does Labour become a “challenger” party rather than a slow moving incumbent of the old political establishment? Labour’s instincts historically have too often been to bury its head in the sand, relying on a Tory implosion to provide the ‘one more heave’ it needs for victory. The recent experience of European centre-left parties blown away by populist left challengers shows just how unwise that strategy could turn out to be: the risk for Labour is permanent irrelevance.Some of the renewal of purpose is inevitably about political organisation: how are candidates selected to ensure a diverse base of political representation; how can Labour update and revitalise the link between the party, the trade unions and the world of work; how does Labour become a “challenger” party rather than a slow moving incumbent of the old political establishment? Labour’s instincts historically have too often been to bury its head in the sand, relying on a Tory implosion to provide the ‘one more heave’ it needs for victory. The recent experience of European centre-left parties blown away by populist left challengers shows just how unwise that strategy could turn out to be: the risk for Labour is permanent irrelevance.
Patrick Diamond is a lecturer in public policy at Queen Mary, University of LondonPatrick Diamond is a lecturer in public policy at Queen Mary, University of London