Brussels Labour
International Branch of the British Labour Party
Renewal in Power – Branch meeting with John McTurneren – 29 November 2006
John is Director of Political Operations at No 10, and is otherwise know
as the PM’s political secretary. He spoke to a packed meeting of the
branch on “renewal in power” – or how we keep on winning.
He opened by explaining the benefits and disadvantages that reaching a 3rd term for the first time has brought us in policy making. Essentially, we now have to take responsibility for everything that happens – it is no longer enough to refer back to what the Tories did, or might have done. People hardly remember, and certainly are no longer interested. Equally however, Ministers have gained greatly in experience since 1997.
Much new policy making was still going on – he felt the party had been “hammered” on anti-social behaviour in the 205 election (indeed we had lost many seats in the last week of the campaign on this issue), but we have now taken firm action encouraging “respect”. We are continuing to fight for a vision of the future based on fairness and vision, and detailed work is going on on transport, planning, climate change and energy.
The Tories have certainly changed since David Cameron’s election, but John considered they had only done half of what was needed to make them electable – they have changed the brand, but not yet the substance. By contrast Blair and Brown worked throughout the 87 – 94 period to change substance too, but the Tory party will not let Cameron and George Osborne do this. In any case, it was good for us to have a revitalised opposition – since this helps galvanise our own supporters too, and remind them why voting is important.
What else are we doing at present? John referred to the Queen’s Speech, delivered earlier the same day, and suggested the greatest challenges still flowed from the end of the Cold War and opening of China. Together, these events had doubled the size of the world economy, causing “globalisation”. We should not shy away from this, but ensure we can derive full benefits from it – so we need to do more to make EU universities drivers of progress like their US counterparts.
Immigration had become a hot issue – and one that is always difficult for the left. But it was vital progressives engaged with the debate – otherwise society’s concerns will be articulated by the right. We should also recognise that while recent immigration has delivered considerable economic benefits, it has caused particular difficulties for the white working class. Since both these and many of the migrants are our supporters, we need to nuance the message very carefully. The new emphasis on integration is vital – the fact for example that 2/3 of Bangladeshi men work in restaurants or minicabs, and only 20% of Bangladeshi women work at all (cp 72% of all UK women) clearly leaves them isolated and vulnerable.
The final issue on which John considered the government has to be seen as responding to people’s concerns is terrorism. The benefits of globalisation and an open world have also created a riskier world. As with terrorism, this tends to be an issue where the right dominate, and vilify the left as weak – see the experience of the Australian Labor Party and the US Democrats. So we must be in control. This would be the key argument in the forthcoming debate on replacement of the nuclear deterrent. He pointed out that the UK had reduced its number of nuclear warheads by 30% since 1997, but considered that not replacing the deterrent would simply mean us sheltering behind the US. Unilateralism had not worked in the 1980s, and was even less likely to be attractive amidst the proliferation of the early 21st Century.
John closed by suggesting that we would not win a 4th term on the basis of what we have done – instead, we will win it because of the vision we offer. This victory, and the change it will give to really embed the changes we’ve made since 1997, would be Tony Blair’s real legacy.
Following John’s speech, we had a particularly lively Q&A session. In answer to the suggestion that Merkel nearly lost in DE by saying there were too many problems, and that we could do the same, JMcT thought the key was to engage people in the discussions, and show that there were things they could do effectively to address problems such as climate change. It was also vital that we on the left showed how collective action can make a difference.
While change continued to be vital – and sometimes painful – politicians had to do more than simply transmit the external forces – they had instead to ensure managed transition and show they empathised with peoples concerns.
Regarding the Party’s problems in London and SE England, John thought these flowed from our difficulties in dealing with the aspirations of sections of society there. On renewal of the party (as opposed to the government), he suggested that we could use the right of party members to vote in the leadership election to reengage with many members.
Finally, in response to the challenge that we had effectively wasted much of the opportunity offered by the 1997 victory, John countered that we had moved on completely from the low tax, small government agenda of Regan and Thatcher – instead we have full workers rights, family tax credits, 43% of (a much larger) GDP spent on public services, up from 36%, and much lower unemployment. Perhaps the problem for party members is that we haven’t glorified in our achievements.
Keir Fitch
He opened by explaining the benefits and disadvantages that reaching a 3rd term for the first time has brought us in policy making. Essentially, we now have to take responsibility for everything that happens – it is no longer enough to refer back to what the Tories did, or might have done. People hardly remember, and certainly are no longer interested. Equally however, Ministers have gained greatly in experience since 1997.
Much new policy making was still going on – he felt the party had been “hammered” on anti-social behaviour in the 205 election (indeed we had lost many seats in the last week of the campaign on this issue), but we have now taken firm action encouraging “respect”. We are continuing to fight for a vision of the future based on fairness and vision, and detailed work is going on on transport, planning, climate change and energy.
The Tories have certainly changed since David Cameron’s election, but John considered they had only done half of what was needed to make them electable – they have changed the brand, but not yet the substance. By contrast Blair and Brown worked throughout the 87 – 94 period to change substance too, but the Tory party will not let Cameron and George Osborne do this. In any case, it was good for us to have a revitalised opposition – since this helps galvanise our own supporters too, and remind them why voting is important.
What else are we doing at present? John referred to the Queen’s Speech, delivered earlier the same day, and suggested the greatest challenges still flowed from the end of the Cold War and opening of China. Together, these events had doubled the size of the world economy, causing “globalisation”. We should not shy away from this, but ensure we can derive full benefits from it – so we need to do more to make EU universities drivers of progress like their US counterparts.
Immigration had become a hot issue – and one that is always difficult for the left. But it was vital progressives engaged with the debate – otherwise society’s concerns will be articulated by the right. We should also recognise that while recent immigration has delivered considerable economic benefits, it has caused particular difficulties for the white working class. Since both these and many of the migrants are our supporters, we need to nuance the message very carefully. The new emphasis on integration is vital – the fact for example that 2/3 of Bangladeshi men work in restaurants or minicabs, and only 20% of Bangladeshi women work at all (cp 72% of all UK women) clearly leaves them isolated and vulnerable.
The final issue on which John considered the government has to be seen as responding to people’s concerns is terrorism. The benefits of globalisation and an open world have also created a riskier world. As with terrorism, this tends to be an issue where the right dominate, and vilify the left as weak – see the experience of the Australian Labor Party and the US Democrats. So we must be in control. This would be the key argument in the forthcoming debate on replacement of the nuclear deterrent. He pointed out that the UK had reduced its number of nuclear warheads by 30% since 1997, but considered that not replacing the deterrent would simply mean us sheltering behind the US. Unilateralism had not worked in the 1980s, and was even less likely to be attractive amidst the proliferation of the early 21st Century.
John closed by suggesting that we would not win a 4th term on the basis of what we have done – instead, we will win it because of the vision we offer. This victory, and the change it will give to really embed the changes we’ve made since 1997, would be Tony Blair’s real legacy.
Following John’s speech, we had a particularly lively Q&A session. In answer to the suggestion that Merkel nearly lost in DE by saying there were too many problems, and that we could do the same, JMcT thought the key was to engage people in the discussions, and show that there were things they could do effectively to address problems such as climate change. It was also vital that we on the left showed how collective action can make a difference.
While change continued to be vital – and sometimes painful – politicians had to do more than simply transmit the external forces – they had instead to ensure managed transition and show they empathised with peoples concerns.
Regarding the Party’s problems in London and SE England, John thought these flowed from our difficulties in dealing with the aspirations of sections of society there. On renewal of the party (as opposed to the government), he suggested that we could use the right of party members to vote in the leadership election to reengage with many members.
Finally, in response to the challenge that we had effectively wasted much of the opportunity offered by the 1997 victory, John countered that we had moved on completely from the low tax, small government agenda of Regan and Thatcher – instead we have full workers rights, family tax credits, 43% of (a much larger) GDP spent on public services, up from 36%, and much lower unemployment. Perhaps the problem for party members is that we haven’t glorified in our achievements.
Keir Fitch
