Wednesday 13 October 2010

Nuff Said

Nicholas Boles writes:

There is a force in British politics that explains the rise and fall of political parties. It determines the outcome of elections and the trajectory of careers. It has earned the trust of the people far more frequently than any political brand. But it is restless. Claimed by almost everyone in politics, it chains itself to none. Like a peripatetic phoenix, it will settle on one perch before bursting into flames and, eventually, being reborn somewhere else. It is the spirit of reform.

In 1997 this spirit flew above an idealistic young prime minister as he walked down Downing Street on a sun-soaked morning in May. It stayed by Tony Blair's side for most of the next 10 years. But, stymied by reactionary forces in Whitehall and the Labour party, it finally admitted defeat when Gordon Brown took up the seals of office. Since then, the biggest question in British politics has been: where will the spirit of reform be reborn? We now know the answer.

At their conference in Manchester, Labour, like a 1950s B&B, put a notice in its front window: "No markets, no Blairites." Its new leader completed his rout of New Labour with a speech in which Blair's boldest reforms were denounced or, in the case of the academies, photoshopped out of the picture like an embarrassing aunt. And it is policy that matters, not frontbench appointments. Making Alan Johnson shadow chancellor may be a clever tactical feint. But the real test for Ed Miliband is: will Johnson be allowed to continue to defend means-tested tuition fees, which unlocked university education for millions, or will the greatest achievement of his ministerial career be trashed by his new boss? If the latter, we will know who has won the argument in Labour. And it won't be the spirit of reform.

In Birmingham and Liverpool, by contrast, we witnessed the reforming zeal of a coalition in which radicalism is the glue that binds two parties. George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith unveiled reforms to our benefits system that will give everyone an incentive to work. Vince Cable revealed plans for a massive increase in employee share ownership in the newly privatised Royal Mail. Eric Pickles unleashed a renaissance of bold, local leadership. The spirit of reform has found a new home: and it's called the coalition.

There is room here for everyone inspired by the desire to transform the way that government works and give people more control over their lives. While it was formed by two parties, the coalition should not be their exclusive preserve. David Cameron and Nick Clegg have already invited Labour reformers to help out. John Hutton has charted a course for public sector pensions reform that is both fair and affordable. Alan Milburn, Frank Field and Graham Allen are advising ministers on how to craft policies to support social mobility, combat poverty and help disadvantaged children. And there are other reformers from the Labour movement who should respond to the public's unmistakable desire for politicians to put aside party quarrels and work together in the national interest.

If President Obama can keep Republican Robert Gates as secretary of state for defence, does Britain have to forfeit the remarkable talent of David Miliband? Can the coalition afford to do without the passionate expertise of Andrew Adonis as it completes his quest to connect Britain's great cities with high-speed rail? Must we try to build the "big society" without the help of James Purnell, who saw that the spirit of reform was leaving Labour long before anyone else? I hope not. Their membership of Labour should not bar them from playing their part. Let us make this the reform coalition and welcome all those who want to build a better Britain.

2 comments:

  1. I consider myself to be on the left, but I have to admit that the most honest and considered critiques of (bad) government and large business policies in the last few years have been delivered by the what in the US are called paleocons, or the very old hard right.

    And if I had lived in England in the nineteenth century I would have been a Tory. We could be seeing that pattern reemerging, and maybe post-1917 politics was an abberation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do get in touch, for we have work to do - davidaslindsay@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete