Labour's Battle of Ideas Came Four Years Too Late

Last month, former Prime Minister Tony Blair provoked a media storm by penning a 5,000 word essay titled: “The Labour Party Is Playing With Fire Over Its Future and the Future of the Country”, in which he bemoaned the current government’s lack of understanding of the seismic changes that will shape the UK and the world over the coming years.

This set off a wave of essay responses from then potential challengers for the Labour leadership, Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting, along with a 3,000-word Substack essay from the politically belated Keir Starmer himself, outlining his government’s overriding philosophy and the steps he believes they have taken to transform Britain.

Our politics needs more of this sort of debate and it should be encouraged. To address the most pressing issues facing the country – a stuttering economy, mass job losses accelerated by AI, the rise of populist politics, energy security amidst global conflicts – politicians must be willing and able to put forward big ideas in the public realm. Of late, there has seemingly been a fear of doing so. Fear of opening oneself up to scrutiny. Fear of alienating a section of the electorate and losing their votes. Fear of becoming defined by a specific idea or policy.

But without such debate, our politics becomes stuck in an endless loop of diagnosis – with politicians repeatedly decrying all the country’s problems and blaming each other for them, without offering the necessary treatment. This can be seen in the recent populist successes of Reform and the Greens - with the former scapegoating immigrants and the latter the wealthy. Addressing either of these subjects will not magically solve Britain’s woes.

So, it is refreshing to see high profile politicians present genuine ideas to improve the running of the state. Burnham spoke about drawing from his Good Growth initiative in Greater Manchester which has boosted growth while reducing deprivation – such as by capping bus fares – noting that cheap travel allows people to get to job interviews and jobs themselves, in turn boosting the economy and reducing welfare dependence. Streeting’s piece fell more on the side of diagnosis, but the recently departed Secretary of State for Health has expressed support for rejoining the EU and proposed a form of wealth tax (albeit by aligning capital gains tax with income tax bands, rather than employing a flat tax on wealth/assets above, say, £10m).

Whether one agrees with his logic or not, Starmer explained his position on matters such as refusing to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea and name-checked the Pride in Place Programme. Communicating enacted policies and making the argument for their position on key issues is vital for any government. They must tell a story of their overarching mission and act decisively, else risk being perceived as inert - an accusation consistently thrown at Starmer and co.

But why was this debate not conducted while Labour were in opposition, as it became increasingly clear the Conservatives would lose the next election paving the way for a Labour government? Doing so would’ve allowed Labour to head into the election with a clear vision of how they planned to turn around the country’s fortunes. It would’ve meant Labour MPs entered parliament knowing what they had signed up to, so there would be no excuse to rebel against the government on key reforms such as welfare. And it would’ve meant the public knew what they had voted for and wouldn’t be taken by surprise by policies such as the increase to employers’ National Insurance, which led to a drastic decrease in hiring. Starmer could have entered 10 Downing Street with a plan and immediately set it in motion.

Of course, conducting such a discussion in public would have been rife with risks. A period of intense debate might have fractured relationships within the party. And some voters would’ve undoubtedly been lost in the process. After the tumultuous Corbyn years, this is likely why Labour wanted to avoid this and present a united front.

But having a period of instability while in opposition would have been far more preferable to in government. In government, all eyes are on you. Each time the Tories descended into infighting, it conveyed a party who could not run the country and were more concerned with themselves. This is being repeated with the current Labour government, as gossip around toppling the Prime Minister grows.

And politics is, ultimately, a battle of ideas. Our democracies are built upon this exchange of competing views, a system which aims to identify the best decisions through proper debate. It is through intensely scrutinising the subject matter and considering different perspectives that we aim to reach the optimal outcome. Simply put, rigorous debate is vital for the success of a democratic government. Politicians must be unafraid to have it.

There is perhaps a feeling that the public are not interested in intricate policy conversations, instead favouring the personality contests and political drama we’ve seen in recent times. This might be true. But perhaps the way our politicians and media act is partly responsible for this.

Politics is a two, arguably three, way relationship. Politicians rely on the public for votes, with the public relying on politicians to identify the challenges the country is facing and address these to improve their everyday lives. The media act as a sort of mediator, holding politicians to account and communicating information to the public to help inform their vote.

Yes, it is the duty of the public to pay attention to the facts and monitor their information diet, particularly in an age of information overload. But it is also the responsibility of politicians to set a good example in their rhetoric and behaviour, and for the media to prioritise the issues that actually matter, rather than promoting clickbait gossip in search of clicks.

So politicians should engage in the type of debate we saw last month more regularly and the media should encourage this, by hosting and promoting more long-form interviews and essays, and focusing on policy and substance over “he said/she said” and the latest psychodrama. It would take time, but perhaps by doing so the public’s interest and engagement with policy debate would grow. 

For now, it is possible Labour will emerge from this recent debate with a new conviction to make bolder decisions and get things done at pace. But by waiting so long to have it, the pervading sense is Labour have wasted two years in government that could’ve been focused on implementing bold ideas.

Image: Flickr/No 10 Downing Street (Lauren Hurley)

Licence.

No image changes made.