I notice, in the battle to be next leader of the Labour Party, the arguement is being raised by a number of the potential leadership candidates that 'we lost the election because we failed to connect...' and that immigration is one of those issues that Labour failed to see as a genuine concern.
I think there is an element of truth in this, but only a element. There were other reasons why the Labour Party lost the election: the economy; parliamentary sleaze - which stuck to them more than it did to the Conservatives or the Lib-Dems; the perception that under Labour we were less free ; that the party was not listening and could not bring itself to change policies that were clearly wrong headed, e.g. ID Cards ; that the traditional Labour voters saw themselves as abandoned in a dash for the Daily Mail reading, middle-classes.
If you were a Trade Unionist why would you vote Labour except out of historical loyalty. The Labour Party behaved like it was embarrassed to be seen with you. No real attempt was made to protect the rights of workers. Whenever it came to a clash between the employer and employee the Labour Party would claim that it could not get involved. The Labour Party waved the sale of the Post Office about. The Education system and the NHS were increasingly opened up to 'the market' as if the market was the answer.
The Banking Crisis shows what happens to a market left to its own devices. In fact the Banking Crisis should be used to hammer every sector that says 'we want less regulation...let us regulate ourselves.' Self-regulation is often no regulation. Everything ticks along nicely until there is a crisis.
The Labour Party should be prepared to press for regulation where needed.
It should not however be the party that reduces our civil liberties. ID Cards, Biometric Passports, the DNA database, CCTV etc have all become memorials to a Labour Party that seemed bent on proving that the best way to protect our way of life from terror was to take away our rights.
In my view a genuine democracy is always at risk. That risk of attack is what we accept when we say we believe ourselves to be citizens of a free society. Yes, the Police have a job to do but that job should always be ring-fenced by the rule of law and that should always err on the side of freedom.
So yes that means letting unpleasent people who 'hate us' say want the want to say. That means letting people stay in this country who appear to hate this country because if they were to be extradited they would be tortured and killed. That means protecting the rights of people who if positions were reversed would deny us those rights. Freedom is a risk.
That's why I think that the reason the Labour Party lost is more complicated than 'immigration'. Immigration is an issue but we need to re-frame the arguement so that it becomes about the use to which immigrants are put. How employers use them to drive down wages, to de-unionise and to try to get a workforce that is not told its rights.
Housing is also an issue. The time has come for the Labour Party to drive for another great Council House building programme so that the poorest can live in better conditions, in safety and in health. The more 'social housing' we make available the better for everyone.
Let's go back to the 1945 manifesto: Housing, Healthcare, Education, Transport.
If we are going to win it won't be as next Labour, new Labour or old Labour. It'll be as The Labour Party. Let's not be afraid to go out and sell our beliefs.
Hey and maybe, just maybe we can mention the word socialism again (but let's not get too excited)
No comments:
Post a Comment