Brian Brivati asks a good question: what would happen to the Labour party if it loses the next election? He points out that in the past - 1931, 1951 and 1979 - it has moved leftwards.
But wouldn't Labour's reaction to losing the election depend upon why it lost?
If it does so, it'll probably be because: the government is regarded as wasteful and incompetent; because there's a "growing and potentially dangerous gap between politicians and the public"; and because the party never tried to make a convincing philosophical case for the income redistribution Brown has undertaken.
So, here's my hope. Labour should infer from this that it should look for small-government redistributive policies; bring the public into policy-making through more direct democracy; and talk more about principles and less about managerialist spin?
But does the party have either the inclination or the intellectual resources to explore these options?
"intellectual resources"? Ooh, I should say so, Missus. No, no, listen! LisTEN! Titter ye not. Nay, nay and thrice nay.
Posted by: dearieme | June 23, 2006 at 02:42 PM
1951???
Surely it was only the Bevanites that swung to the left after that election defeat, and they were ostracised by the party leadership and the unions as a result? Labour was astonishingly moderate to the point of inertia for most of that decade.
Posted by: Igor Belanov | June 23, 2006 at 03:02 PM
Chris - I read what you have to say about managerialism with great interest, not least because there's no doubt that education in this country suffers greatly from this disease. I was wondering though how this would square with more direct democracy? Presumably this would mean people would vote more often and for specific issues rather than parties. Don't you think the need to sell a particular position on whatever issue was being considered would result in more rather than less spin?
Posted by: Shuggy | June 23, 2006 at 07:46 PM