Labour can bounce back quicker than Blair thinks

New Labour often gave the impression that it thought the world began in 1997. Yet it was, in fact, profoundly influenced by a reading of the party's history.

Early New Labour was much influenced by David Marquand's persuasive thesis in "the progressive dilemma" of the limits of Labourism in the conservative century, in which cause Tony Blair suffered claret-induced hangovers after tutorials from Roy Jenkins.

So perhaps it is appropriate that it is LibDem blogger and historian Mark Pack who queries Tony Blair's account of Labour's electoral history.

Blair told Andrew Marr that:

And the question for the Labour Party is do you buck the historical trend, which has always been, you lose an election and then you go off and decide to lose a few more, before you come back".

This isn't true. It reflects the formative importance of the 1980s and the 1992 defeat in particular for Blair, but does not describe much of a trend, still less what "always" happens.

Labour has left office five times before 2010. (Five data-points don't offer strong grounds for iron historical laws anyway - as new MP Chi Onwurah's satirical LabourList post demonstrates). Twice it won the next election immediately following defeat; once it needed one more go, while it did suffer multiple defeats as an opposition on two occasions, in the 1950s and 1980s.

1924: won the next election (minority government)
1931*: lost once more (1935) and won the second election (1945)
1951: lost two more elections (1955, 1959) before winning the third (1964)
1970: won the next election (1974, minority government, then small majority).
1979: lost three more (1983, 1987, 1992) before winning in 1997.
2010: ....

(* 1931 election held two months after the Labour party left office, though former Labour PM and Chancellor had stayed on in National Government)

Pack makes the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that Labour has bounced back most quickly after 1924 and 1970 when it held on to its leader and policies.

David Miliband has made a similar argument to Blair's.

We need to buck the trend that when Labour lost in 1931, we were out for 14 years; that when we lost in 1951, we were out for 13 years; when we lost, as we know to our cost, in 1979 we were out for 18 years.

I am asking you to help make this time different from the rest.

But if 1931 and 1951 are in then why omit 1970?

And Labour was in government within nine years of 1931 election, in the wartime Coalition. It could hardly have won earlier when there was no election for the decade between 1935 and 1945. (It may be unfair to argue Labour was "exhausted" in opposition in the 1930s, since Labour's foreign policy shift under Dalton from pacifism in 1934 to rearmament in 1937, rather against and ahead of the public mood, were the most important decisions the party ever made, with Labour backing for Churchill proving absolutely crucial in a divided war cabinet in 1940)

***

Where are we now? Well, we learn from history, rather than being condemned to repeatit.

The fear of 1980s civil war run deep, but are perhaps the least apt analogy, not least because the party retains a very strong folk memory of the futility of that period.

In some ways, Labour's condition is similar to that in 1970, retaining the Parliamentary strength to have a decent chance next time, but requiring rather greater change to provide the foundations of a governing project.

In many ways, the party does face similar challenges to those it struggled to deal with in 1951, when it seemed unable to renew after a successful period in office. The problem was not then any lurch to the left. Attlee stayed on for four years, until after the 1955 defeat as the party relied too heavily on the experience of its former ministers.

Labour shifted its policy and political approach barely a millimetre, to steal Mr Blair's phrase and recommendation. It is good that this ossifying advice has been rejected by every 2010 leadership candidate, since it would be to repeat exactly the post-1951 mistake whch Crossman identified in new Fabian Essays:

[Labour had] "lost its way not only because it lacked maps of the new country it is crossing, but because it thinks maps unnecessary for experienced travellers".

David Miliband rejects ghosts of Blair and Brown

Nobody knows for sure how far two days of media coverage dominated by former premier Tony Blair will affect how party members and affiliates cast their Labour leadership votes.

David Miliband's latest email this morning to party members - extracted below - demonstrates the concern that they could, and his campaign's final focus on a "unity", cross-factional pitch in response. The "sick and tired" comment would appear to be a rejection of press or political caricatures of "Red Ed" as a "pre-New labour" candidate (as Peter Mandelson put it), though it could perhaps also imply a challenge to his brother's campaign.

Here's his pitch

I will move us on from Blair and Brown - Leadership 2010

I respect both Tony and Gordon deeply. But their time has passed. Their names do not appear on the leadership ballots. And now we need to stop their achievements being sidelined and their failings holding us back.

I'm sick and tired of the caricature that this leadership election is a choice between rejecting or retaining New Labour. It does a disservice to all of the candidates and, even worse, a disservice to the thousands of members who’ve been participating in this contest over the last few months and working hard for years.

To those trying to trash our past and those trying to recreate it, I say enough is enough, it is time to move on.

I joined the Labour Party back in 1983 because I believed then, as I do now, that we are stronger when we stand together. And that has never been truer than when applied to our Party.

I believe that this election is about pulling together all the talents of our Party. It's about teamwork, mutual respect - and a rejection of the tired old Westminster games of closed door briefings, posturing, attack and rebuttal. I want to change the way we do politics.

Because I want to lead a government not a gang, a movement not a machine, where honest debate can be a source of strength, not a sign of weakness.

...

So, who was really behind the attempt to get Hague?

Stephen Tall of LibDemVoice makes a couple of significant observations about the relative role of newspapers and blogs in the allegations about William Hague, to which the Foreign Secretary responded with a personal statement

Firstly, that this was as much about newspapers as blogs. (As Next Left noted last Saturday - Hague warns press not to follow Guido's lead - William Hague appears to have been comparatively relaxed about the blog coverage, focusing on deterring newspapers from following up).

Secondly, that the first story about the appointment of a new Spad appeared in the Mail on Sunday on Sunday 21st August. The MoS was first to publish year-old pictures of William Hague and his adviser. (The inquiry and reporting about the appointment of a 4th adviser despite pledges to cut them is legitimate: the MoS placed much less emphasis on hinting at a relationship. Despite the extensive use of the photographs, many MoS readers wculd have read that without getting the further hint. The Telegraph diary was keener to make clear what it was hinting at; there was no difference in content or tone in the Telegraph diary item and the initial postings on the Guido Fawkes blog.

Paul Staines - of the Guido Fawkes blog - has pursued the story most energetically, managing to run seven or eight different items referencing it between 24th August and September 1st.

But it would appear he was following-up the story, and did not originate it.

The chronology
- Sunday 21st August: Mail on Sunday story and pictures on the Sunday;
- Monday 22nd August: Paul Staines' Freedom of Information request trying to shift the focus onto the relationship angle on the Monday; - At least one other blogger - John Hirst of Jailhouse Lawyer - had run the relationship allegation on the Monday 22nd August, while the Mail and Telegraph reported in similar terms to the MoS.
- Tuesday 23rd August: The first Guido Fawkes' blog post "Just asking" on the Tuesday; which provided the content for the Telegraph diary and a further Mai;l news report on the Wednesday, then promoted by Paul Staines back on his blog, attempting to stir up Sunday newspapers and so on.

This strongly suggests to us that William Hague has an unidentified enemy who was the source for both the Mail's reporting and for Paul Staines' blog.

Interesting questions arise: who is behind the attempt to end the career of the Foreign Secretary?

Paul Staines' role would appear to be that of their most energetic - but not sole - assistant.

PS: Whether the allegations do have an impact on Hague's long-term political career remains to be seen. He has been widely seen as among the three most likely successors to David Cameron as Conservative Party, as can be seen by the betting odds on next leader. As with Michael Gove's difficulty with his schools plans, it seems probable that the odds on William Hague may well lengthen.

Kelvin's memo for Guido

William Hague has issued a personal statement, responding to "malicious" allegations over his relationship with one of his advisers, and also revealing that he and his wife's hopes of starting a family had been disappointed, through suffering several miscarriages. The adviser concerned has resigned. Hague says that "He has now told me that, as a result of the pressure on his family from the untrue and malicious allegations made about him, he does not wish to continue in his position. It is a pity that a talented individual should feel that he needs to leave his job in this way".

***

The allegations have been most prominently promoted by the 'Guido Fawkes' blog. Its author Paul Staines earlier responded to criticism, from Iain Dale on the right as well as this blog on the left, of his increasingly single-issue blog by tweeting a tribute to controversial ex-Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie, whom he regards as a moral compass:

We solve all the blog's ethical dilemmas by asking ourselves "what would Kelvin MacKenzie have done?"

Which is funny - because Kelvin might well join those telling Guido to put a sock in it.

Or rather, Guido may be relying on Old Kelvin, not New Kelvin. Old Kelvin said of his target 1980s readership, according to the 'Stick it up your junta' unauthorised history his Sun years.

"You just don't understand the readers, do you, eh? He's the bloke you see in the pub, a right old fascist, wants to send the wogs back, buy his poxy council house, he's afraid of the unions, afraid of the Russians, hates the queers and the weirdos and drug dealers. He doesn't want to hear about that stuff [serious news]".

By 2003, Mackenzie was more than ready to move on, saying he had become "vaguely more liberal": "All that old 'pulpit poofs' stuff was 15 bloody years ago ... I'm just older now and I've moved on"

By this year, New Kelvin could be found waxing lyrical on the Today programme about how anti-discrimination laws "had made a dramatic and welcome difference" in changing the public culture in a more liberal Britain - so that the readers "couldn't give a damn" about somebody's sexuality.

It was 12 years ago - right back in 1998 - that The Sun, then edited by David Yelland - announced something of a change of mind, just days after being criticised for its front-page splash "Are we being run by a Gay Mafia", as the BBC reported at the time.

The paper's editor, David Yelland, said that in future, the paper would not "out" gay people unless it was in the public interest.

"We will continue to be in the vanguard of this debate - and all debates - but we will not invade the privacy of gay people by outing them."

Mr Yelland added: "The Sun is no longer in the business of destroying closet gays' lives by 'exposing' them as homosexuals.

William Hague is quite clear that the allegations are untrue and malicious. Perhaps Guido should give Kelvin a call about how he might respond.

The splintering of the Brownites ... and the limits of king-making

There will not be a next generation blood feud of Blairites and Brownites on the post-1951 Bevanites versus Gaitskellites model. That is partly because the differences between Blairite New Labour and Brownite New Labour were considerably narrower than the protagonists appear to think. But it is also because the next generation are much less interested than would suit the media.

The Brownite camp was never enormously large. One of the striking features of the leadership election is just how scattered it has become.

The group has provided two competing leadership candidates - in Ed Balls and Ed Miliband, both of whom have run on their own arguments and ideas, and not on continuity Brownism. Another of Brown's close colleagues, Douglas Alexander, can be found running David Miliband's campaign. (Tony Blair's memoir expressed his wish to detach Alexander from the Brown camp - but this rather more reflects that David Miliband is caricatured as a simple 'continuity Blairite').

We may now see a further splintering of ex-Brownite opinion over the question of second preferences.

The Independent reports that Geoffrey Robinson, Coventry MP and former New Statesman owner, will be giving his second preference to David Miliband.

Tom Watson, another Ed Balls nominee, is giving his second preference to Ed Miliband, making Tony Blair's regrets about Freedom of Information the occasion on which to make his second vote known:

I want a society where Freedom of Information Act is just the start. Thought long and hard. Am backing @Ed_miliband with 2nd preference.

All of this offers good grounds for increased scepticism about claims that Ed Balls is going to play a "king-maker" role in the leadership election.

For one thing, this demonstrates how even MPs who have been particularly close to a candidate will make up their own minds - and are not votes who can be delivered en bloc. Those who want to work out how MP second preferences go are going to need to look, individually, at the nominees and supporters of individual candidates. (For example, the assumption that Andy Burnham's MP supporters will go to David Miliband may hold, but needs to factor in how a large number are based more on regional affinity than a left-right preference).

For another, Ed Balls himself gives every impression that he intends to make his own second preference clear as late as is feasible, which is sensible since doing so could well hamper his efforts to maintain his own campaign's momentum before the votes are cast.

If he does not go public by the weekend, it is quite likely that 50-75% of those who vote may already have done so.

The powers of a king-maker are easily exaggerated. Perhaps Ed Balls is not going to put them to the test.

Iain Dale v Guido: hate the sin, not the sinner

The right-wing blogger Paul Staines, who blogs as Guido Fawkes, had a disappointing weekend, having excitedly and confidently predicted that the Sunday papers would be splashing on the major Cabinet scandal he has devoted his blog to energetically promoting over the last week. However, his target William Hague's statement that the blog's allegations are simply baseless would appear to have been fairly effective, while seeking not to fuel the rumour mill excessively.

Tory blogger Iain Dale has had enough:

The campaign against William Hague on the Guido Fawkes blog is nothing short of reprehensible. The lies, smears and innuendo are pathetic.

I think he's right about that.

However, Dale knows Staines considerably better than I do, and is happy to vouch that his fellow blogger is not homophobic. That is reassuring.

This does, though, present Dale with the challenge of finding a formula which can somehow reconcile that knowledge of Staines' character with the Fawkes' blogs active encouragement and celebration of pretty vile homophobic abuse which is consistently published in the comments threads of the blog.

Guido Fawkes is not a homophobe, but the way he is writing about this allows those who think he is homophobic to confirm their own prejudices.

Hate the sin and not the sinner! And there is some tricky logic around evidence-based prejudice there.

But, since Iain Dale here demonstrates a generosity of spirit, let us all hope that the Guido Fawkes blog does not (continue to) cross that line.

Bank independence: Brown, Blair or Balls?

One of the more surprising claims in the Tony Blair book is that Bank of England independence was his idea, rather than Gordon Brown's.

Bloomberg have a report with the key quote.

“When I suggested it, he readily agreed,” Blair, 57, wrote in his memoir “A Journey,” published by Random House today. “I allowed Gordon to make the statement and indeed gave him every paean of praise and status in becoming the major economic figure of the government. In truth, too, as with the Bank of England independence, the broad framework of the economy, never mind anything else, was set by me.”

The Bloomberg report raises an eyebrow at this, noting that Ed Balls is usually considered to be the author of the policy:

Blair’s comments may disappoint Ed Balls, an adviser to Brown during the run-up to Labour’s 1997 election win and now a contender for the Labour leadership. Balls wrote a pamphlet for the Fabian Society, a research group linked to Labour, in 1992 advocating independence for the central bank.

Blair “probably knows that Bank of England independence was one of the defining achievements of his first term in government and, I don’t know, maybe he’ll give me a thumbs-up for that one,” Balls said in an interview last week.

Balls' claim is confirmed by the most detailed account of the build-up to Bank independence - that given by Bill Keegan of The Observer, in his very straight account of Labour economic policy-making in opposition and government, titled 'The Prudence of Gordon Brown'.

I reviewed the Keegan book back in 2003, noting of its account of Bank Independence that:

He [Keegan] recalls how shocked he and the rest of the economic commentariat were by Brown's political coup de thétre - making the Bank of England independent on day eight in power. Yet he also shows how long in the making the move was. Brown had first recruited his highly influential special adviser, Ed Balls, on the basis of the latter's 1992 Fabian pamphlet advocating Bank independence and a rigorous approach to economic stability. By 1995, Brown was convinced and had Blair on board. Brown's euro-caution combined a strong belief in the merits of his independent Bank with the scars of the ERM crisis.

Right of centre commentator Matthew d'Ancona, a Blair admirer, has also noted how the 1992 pamphlet sets out the macroeconomic strategy and political narrative which New Labour was to adopt. (It was also a stark warning against the risks of European monetary union for the UK).

As D'Ancona writes:

Scroll back to December 1992 when a brilliant, 25-year-old leader writer at the Financial Times called Ed Balls published a Fabian discussion document on "Euro-monetarism".

The paper, with its emphasis upon "economic stability" and demands for an end to the "boom-bust cycle", was stuffed full of phrases that would become Labour soundbites. It was also the intellectual basis for a hugely influential partnership between Balls and his subsequent boss, Mr Brown, and their joint insistence that Labour, as the party of devaluation and the 1976 IMF debt crisis, needed to construct for itself a "platform of stability".

Of course, Ed Balls - as a policy adviser before entering Parliament in 2005 - could not decide the policy and political strategy. His idea of an independent the Bank could not have been put into practice if both Brown and Blair had not agreed with it, and the broader macroeconomic and political strategy of which it was part. But the policy's genesis - and journey from Balls to Brown to Blair seems clear. A strategy which amounted to a critique of why Labour governments had fallen prey to financial crises - explaining their failure to last more than one term - would certainly have strongly appealed to Blair as well as Brown, but it is pretty difficult to see how Blair - sometime between 1992 and 1995 - could seriously claim to have alighted on the idea from another source.

Tony Blair and Ed Balls are not usually thought to form a mutual fan club.

However, Balls did nominate Blair as Labour's best leader in the party's history in the Newsnight leadership debate. And Blair himself makes this conciliatory remark about Balls in the book, noted by the Guardian's Andrew Sparrow, who is among those journalists undertaking the public service of trying to read and live-blog at the same time.

I've had some harsh things to say about Ed Balls – I thought he behaved badly at points, and was wrong on policy – but I also thought he was really able, and a talent that any political party should be grateful to have.