« Child Poverty Podcast | Home | This Was the Week That Was »
A New Vocabulary/Language I
By Andy | April 24, 2009
I spent part of yesterday with a bunch of London economists (yes I know — it’s probably not good for my health).
It was an interesting discussion. All were left.Labour supporting economists and all pretty much agreed that the economy (and us) were screwed. Non believed in the Darling’s growth targets but even worse they thought they had found another problem. Darling assumes that the cost of borrowing — to the government — will remain at current levels. They were doubtful that this would be the case especially as the same budget envisaged a move in the housing market which they told me usually meant a rise in the cost of borrowing.
They were all struck by notion of a new vocabulary or language of politics, but they did take me to task for one of my assertions in yesterday’s blog.
Yesterday I wrote: ” … (Labour) is defined by a commitment redistribution and to the public sector as the primary means of achieving it.”
The view was that Labour is not really a party of redistribution — Labour — they argued — was a Party that worried about social equity and distribution, which is not really the same thing. They went on. Distribution is still key, but this time in a very different way.
The argument was that (for the next decade) the critical issue is likely to be how we “distribute pain” equitably. This is really a class issue. How to do we look after US rather than THEM when public spending is in steep decline.
Now — like it as I may — we will get nowhere with a language of class warfare. But we will need new ways of expressing these issues and concerns.
So, an early example of how Labour will have to search for a new language and give voice to a new narrative in describing the central task of the next decade.
All were agreed that this could only be done through a new leadership, although this was not likely to be anything that we should worry about before the next election. However, they were clear that the issues of leadership — both substance and style — were looming large.
As ever (when sitting outside of a pub on a warm evening) a discussion ensued about the possible candidates. It fascinates me how people don’t want to really address the reality that the next leader will come from a safe seat (and that probably means the North). It is worth getting the Parliamentary Map our and beginning to ponder alternatives. Assuming that people like Cruddas get back they will be able to play a big role in the future. But who is the central leadership figure.
He or she is somewhere in the North right now!
Topics: Economics, Westminster Village |
April 26th, 2009 at 8:47 am
I actually saw somebody just yesterday propound on a Labour blog that HAZEL BLEARS should be elected leader.
Ye Gods and little fishes: could anybody take that vacuous woman seriously?. Any time I have heard her doing a bit of “crisis management” on Radio 4 after one of New Labour’s typically selfish transgressions she sounds like a parrott “This is a very serious matter” repeated three or four times during the course of an interview, is not, in my view a very satisfactory response. She never seems to do anything: she talks a lot and says little, and she seems entirely ineffectual in her job - and any job she has ever had in government - she is a sort of female Geoff Hoon.
Still I suppose she could always deliver bad news whilst execuuting a tap-dance and roar of on her motorbike to meet foreign dignitries. No doubt Stephen Pound will become her deputy
I think there is little doubt Jon Cruddas will be re-elected Dagenham is a traditional Labour seat and always has been. He would be the best signal of a new start. What Labour don’t need is the return of “Blairism” with the ghastly old waxworks we all know so well…..