SPECTATOR
The Spectator, 56 Doughty Street, London WC1N 2LL Telephone: 071-405 1706; Telex 27124; Fax 071-242 0603
LABOUR'S PLASTIC ROSE
T. he traditional role of the Opposition m Britain has been to expose weaknesses in Government policy, not to expose itself by suggesting alternatives. For special reasons, Labour now ignores this custom. The last two elections taught the party that Clause Four socialism was unacceptable to voters. In the inquest after the 1987 defeat, pragmatists decided the Tories could not be relied upon to lose elections: Labour would need to win them. Part of doing so includes convincing the public that the sacred cows of collectivism have gone to the abbatoir.
The policy review has been a public relations exercise more than an ideological reform. Between each party conference, the party has issued policy documents, leaked in advance to parts of the media that can be relied upon to promote favour- able aspects. By skilful management, Labour's image-mongers have kept the Idea of the party's new respectability in the headlines; Mr Peter Mandelson, Labour's Communications chief, believes that if you keep telling the public something, the public will eventually believe you. The latest episode of Labour revision- ism, published this week, follows this tradition. Little in it was not contained in the 1989 review document Meet the Chal- lenge, Make the Change. Presentation has been modified, but the party is still reluc- tant to talk in other than generalities, or to cost its promises. Economic plans are presented in more detail than before, though will raise more questions than they solve about how tax changes would affect middle income earners. Yet it is with fundamental philosophical questions rather than specific points of policy that Labour seems to be in the most difficulty. This party is keen to persuade voters that it has, however grudgingly, accepted the big idea of Thatcherism – free markets. Yet Labour talks of the need for govern- ments to tackle 'market failures'. Labour will not accept that the market cushioned against failure is like heaven without hell ---- an unsatisfactory basis for a belief. The outcry over the closure of the Ravenscraig strip mill – which it has done the Govern- ment no favours to be identified with shows what Labours industrial policy would be. The party's desire (shared with Mr Michael Heseltine) to spread the power of the Department of Trade and Industry across the land. compounds fears of inter- ventionism. It provokes memories of George Brown's ill-fated Department of Economic Affairs, with its day-to-day in- terference in private enterprise. The bad old Labour Party had its National Enter- prise Board. The new model Labour Party has its National Investment Bank. Vive la difference! Aside from the inflationary dangers of cutting interest rates while increasing pub- lic spending – perhaps by as much as £18 billion – Labour promises a minimum wage. Such a move, unrelated to produc- tivity, would lead to higher unemployment among the most vulnerable in the jobs market. It shows how Labour remains the party of the unions – for this policy has been led by the TUC – and how it fails to confront basic economic truths. Such poli- cies create the suspicion that Labour lacks the strength to govern.
The party's 180 degree turn on Europe owes much to Mr Delors' visit to the TUC in 1988, when he promised that the EEC would restore socialist values to Britain. Labour shows no proper understanding of how it would lead Britain in Europe. This failing so dismays ex-Ministers in its ranks who know the realities of government and international relations – like Mr Peter Shore – that they now speak frequently and loudly against the party's blind acceptance of the Delors menu.
Labour needs to resolve two strategic issues in particular. It needs the votes of `C2s', skilled workers who supported Mrs Thatcher during the 1980s but whom Labour now identifies as vulnerable to capture, thanks to economic pressures. Labour's 'roof tax' will crucially affect the C2 vote. Levied partly on the capital value of property, it will hit those who bought their council houses at a 60 per cent discount, notably in the South of England where Labour must win seats, and where the value of the property may have little relation to the wealth of the occupier.
Secondly, Labour needs to win the battle not simply of policies but of leadership. However much he has matured, and what- ever his achievements in reforming his party, Mr Kinnock does not inspire confi- dence as a potential prime minister. His big weakness is an inability to grasp complex issues. His repeated Commons questioning in recent months of the Prime Minister about inflation has shown this all too clearly. This lack of grasp worries his more gifted front bench colleagues, who know the public values a leader who, however obdurate, commands confidence. Like Mr Kinnock, Labour's policy review is super- ficially pleasant, but deficient in depth: and, worse for Labour's prospects, it fails to carry the conviction that it would lead to the sound government of Britain at a time when domestic and foreign challenges will be especially exacting.
Previous page
