Labour: next step oblivion?

by Rick Johansen

Reading my newspaper today, I find myself hugely dispirited by the comments of one of the Labour leadership candidates. Liz Kendall, of whom I had never previously heard until after the General Election, has ensured that someone like me, a cuddly, wishy-washy, left of centre (but not that far) socialist would never support her in a million years. Just look at a selection of the gems she has come out with in today’s Guardian:

Labour should “advocate an end to high taxation just to make a point”.
It should not support a top rate of tax of 50p.
Labour should have “reined in spending” before the financial crash, although she adds, puzzingly but this time accurately, that the crash itself was not caused by Labour overspending.
She supports the benefits cap. (“Voters in my constituency do not feel people who are not working should get more than those in work.”)
And this gem: “Effective stewardship of the public finances has to be at the heart of everything we do.”

Not set in isolation, the quotes might appear to make sense. But think again. Labour does not support high taxation per se. It is a total myth and, I have to say it’s more than a white lie. Labour should support fair taxation, not high taxation, where those with the broadest backs taking some of the burden from the poorest people in society, not to “make a point”, but because it’s fairer. I agree that a 50p top rate is not desirable on a permanent basis, but we are in tough times.

Building schools and hospitals did not cause Lehman Brothers in America to go bust. Nor did they cause the near meltdown of the banking system at home. Perhaps light regulation didn’t help, but then Cameron and Osborne wanted it even lighter and, moreover, they agreed to match Labour spending right up until the global crash.

And the benefits cap, well…

It might as well be Iain Duncan Smith speaking, not a so-called Labour politician. Unless Kendall has a threadbare understanding of the benefits system – and that’s possible: she is a politician after all – she should know that the examples often shouting out at us from the front page of the Daily Mail (prop. Lord Rothermere, non dom) include Housing Benefit, all of which goes to landlords. It is not to pay for lavish holidays or state of the art TVs. But let’s not let facts get in the way of a pitiful argument.

Not content with going over Tory ground with the benefit system, Kendall spouts pure Osbornomics with “effective stewardship of the public finances has to be at the heart of everything we do.” If she meant to say that Labour needs to be trusted with the public finances, I’d agree with her, but my argument is different from hers. Labour’s failure was not the Tory line of “the mess we inherited” but because Labour failed to counter the lie. It did not explain that the worldwide crash, and its effects on Britain, were not Gordon Brown’s fault. But Kendall says she wants to “tell it like it is”, even though she doesn’t.

Where I do agree with Kendall, but not for the reasons she gives, is when she says: “One more parliament like the last means we might be unable to form a majority government again.” But my argument is that someone with Kendall’s Tory-centric policies would ensure it.

My two preferred candidates, Dan Jarvis and Chuka Umunna, have both withdrawn from the context, leaving Mary Creagh, Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham and Kendall herself. I have no idea who Creagh is and discount straight away Cooper who has far too much baggage from Labour’s recent past, so for me it’s Andy Burnham as leader with either Caroline Flint or Stella Creasy (or even Gloria De Piero) as deputy. Even that doesn’t greatly inspire me, but it’s a pitifully thin field.

Yes, Labour must re-establish its economic credentials, even though things were never as bad as the Tories and their media pals claimed, but as a party it must stand for much more than that, the equality of opportunity, fairness, strong, effective public services, dignity in old age and all the other principles upon which the party was founded.

Labour needs a vision and strategy for the whole country but embracing Tory policies will simply encourage voters to stick with the real thing. And a Labour Party led by Kendall with a world view like hers would not be for me. I am quite sure she would take it to oblivion.

You may also like

1 comment

John Dickens May 17, 2015 - 09:25

There was not enough difference between the parties and not enough call for change to motivate the electorate. The Tories are going to have to sleaze/mess it up big time to get voted out in 5 years. The “good” news is that it looks like that is what they intend to do.

Comments are closed.