'Third way' tactics in Labour politics

Span has been doing some posts (link to the latest here) on the future of the left, with the latest looking at the question of where young left wingers with some energy might choose to engage in parliamentary politics, an assessment of the current parties and options for how to go about building a more radical vehicle for parliamentary politics.

This gives me thought again about Labour's strategy. Since about 1993 Labour has been following the third way strategy that has been best analysed in the UK.  The key components of that locally have been:

• Emphasis on the connection between social justice and economic development
• Moderate political positioning, in touch with voters not activists
• Pragmatic policy lines in terms of public spending and the market/community boundary
• An avoidance of 'reform' as opposed to consolidation in most areas of policy
• Incremental change and routing around, rather than challenging, opposition to particular policies

It has been a very successful strategy for Labour. The party has rebuilt from a very low share of the vote of 28% in 1996, to three consecutive election wins around 40%. The message of moderation, and of investment in public services instead of cutting taxes, has been an electoral winner. It came in the wake of lurches and extremist reform from the other side of politics that took National two terms to start to disown.

Now many people in Labour and of course in the further left would like to see a more progressive politics more quickly. Many others would argue that to do so would leave the electorate behind and to simply deliver power into regressive hands, to no purpose.

I have sympathy for both sides in the debate, but tend in my head towards the latter position. If one wants to achieve more progressive political change, you have to secure changes to the political culture, and methods of campaigning and engaging with the electorate to do that.

How?

Labour's analysis is that gradual, unthreatening change, combined with demonstrated results of life getting better for ordinary people, can help build support for progressive measures. And in the context of a snapshot in 1999 compared with a snapshot of today, there have been some pretty good improvements in a range of areas (labour law, tertiary student support, hospital throughput, primary health care, early childhood rollout, fewer people on benefits, and many more).

That progress, judging on the electoral results, have been on the edge of what could happen. Labour in New Zealand hasn't had the advantage of a FPP electoral system that could deliver crushing majorities to the government, so the UK argument 'could have done more, faster' doesn't really apply here. One can make a very rational argument that if Labour had moved further and faster in a progressive direction in any of the terms in government, it would not have been able to win in the next election.

A reasonable counter to this, on the other hand, is that some of the key policy lines which carried Labour through the 2005 poll (interest free student loans, a large expansion of Working for Families etc) were examples of bolder, less cautious initiatives, that definitely helped not hurt the party's electoral chances, as well as making policy a bit more progressive than it would otherwise have been.

So that's Labour's story. The question I have for Span and for others who would like to see a more aggressively-prosecuted agenda is, what would you do instead?

• What campaigning methods and communication styles do you think would develop public support for more progressive politics?
• What key policy planks would you propose to distinguish yourselves from the moderate left?
• How would you interact with the moderate left? A conciliatory or a hostile approach?

I'm sure there are many more questions. Interested in the views of those who define themselves as left of Labour. Seems to me that in the absence of good ideas on the above and other questions, it is hard to proceed faster - no matter how much we might want to.

Comments

[toms]

My view is "third way" politics is on close analysis a crock. It is a vehicle that has allowed the left to gain power when Thatcherite politics had skewed the debate so far to the right that the middle was completely out of kilter, but I don't think we should for a minute delude ourselves that it constitutes a coherent left wing response. The third way to me was and has always been a means to an end, about pragmatism and the art of the possible and about gaining power to pull the middle ground back to centre so a proper left dialogue can resume.

Labour has had seven years now. The right has presented us with a golden opportunity with this election funding row to reform party and election funding to permanently level the playing field of ideas by stopping the new right money juggernaut that seeks vehicles to buy so it can implement its policies without regard for the wishes of the electorate. If we can ensure the debate is about good ideas and policy from across the spectrum and not simply a procession of paid for business friendly policies, then we can discard the fig leaf of the third way and actually have the courage of our convictions to openly and proudly argue progressive, left wing policies without fear of being crushed by an avalanche of corporate dollars.

[Gerrit]

Interesting summation.

The vote is in the centre (either centre left or centre right) and any party straying too far away from the centre will not be elected. You could certainly try and gently slide the populace into the left or right ideology but history shows it will always swing back the other way.

While you concentrate on policy shifts you are forgetting the cult of personalities. Either party can swing the centre around their view by the persona of the people they put up to represent them.

Tom, "courage of our convictions to openly and proudly argue progressive, left wing policies without fear of being crushed by an avalanche of corporate dollars"

Any examples of how the avalanche has smothered left wing policies? Could it be more likely that those left wing policies were unpallateable to the voters?

In the centre the vote will stay because people like the security of having a public support safety net (left wing) while enjoying material gains and personal freedom (right wing)

[neil morrison]

For me the third way is a recognition that balancing "social justice and economic development" is actually a very difficult thing to do. The traditional Left view was that social injustice is simply the result of Evil Capitalists and so the solution must be equally simple. But it's not. There are many competing social groupings within any society, balancing their competing demands is not straight forward - eg the current debate on herceptrin.

[rightkiwi]

What you say here may have had something to it 1999-2005 but the current Government has no policy programme at all, as you well know and no doubt lament. The only policy programme are UF and NZ1's corporate tax cuts. There is no social policy legislation, no climate change policy, no education policy, no health policy .... just managerialism for its own sake, and increasingly incompetent management at that. It feels like the Shipley Government - after strong policy making and reform (whether you agree with it or not) in the early 1990s, by the late 19990s there were no energy or ideas left at all, just increasingly silly "packages" of minor changes to this or that. Interestingly, the common factor is Winston Peters, a man with no ideas or ideals. Perhaps once he is thrown into the mix, the life simply drains from any Government, right or left.

[Peter Cresswell]

An interesting analysis, Jordan. I've used your own analysis to compare and contrast your Third Way with US Neoconservatism -- you may be surprised at the results, but I doubt that any of this thread's commenters so far would be.

I invite you to take a look: 'How the New 'Left' and the Authoritarian 'Right' Meet in the Authoritarian Middle.'
http://pc.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-new-left-and-right-meet-in.html

[Jordan Carter]

I'll have a read post-exams, Peter.

Rightkiwi - I don't think that is an accurate summation at all. What is perhaps different is that much of the current policy programme was announced last year during the campaign, or is the continuance of programmes started earlier in the government's term. There is no point in making policy for the sake of it, and a busy government constantly flashing out new policies isn't necessarily the best.

[Span]

Thanks for this Jordan, I have responded here:
http://spanblather.blogspot.com/2006/10/can-labour-be-left-again.html

[Jordan Carter]

Cheers Span - will come back.

JC