|
· The Third Way, which is based on pragmatism not principle, will not survive as a political philosophy, because it offers no long-term vision of where society is going.
· Strong political leadership demands an open and informed public debate with clear choices about Britain's future direction
*****
Courage and moral principle required
1999 will be a decisive year for New Labour. By the end of it we will know a great deal more about the "project" as Mr Blair is pleased to call the government of our country. We will know whether the Third Way can become anything more than an empty phrase. And we will know whether this "modern" regime has the wisdom to know that it requires the ancient virtues of courage and moral principle, together with the character to search them out and abide by them. In short, we will discover whether this government has the leadership mettle that our nation deserves and needs as we stand on the threshold of a new century.
As I write in the second week of January 1999, the year has not got off to a promising start. The headlines have been of personal feuds and rampant factionalism. A new European currency has been launched and our Chancellor has had nothing whatsoever to say about it - not even "no comment". The NHS is in crisis, without even a proper epidemic to blame. The BMA acknowledges that the cause is at least in part due to the government's obsession with implementing its early pledge to cut waiting lists, despite the universally acknowledged truth that what matters is the length of the wait, not the length of the list. Over in Education, David Blunkett promised us that he would resign if numeracy targets were not met. There is a real risk that they will not be, and so funds are now to be ploughed into "crammer" classes rather than long-term reform, in order to save the minister's face. The government's emphasis on presentation rather than properly considered policy has created new problems whilst solving none.
The beginning to the year may be inauspicious enough, but the months ahead hold little for the government to look forward to. The local government and European elections in May and June, and the elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assemblies all hold problems of their own. The Conservative Party may fare poorly in opinion polls, but when people actually vote, as they do in local government by-elections up and down the country almost every week, the party has had a small lead over the government.
Choppy waters ahead
It is the constitution which presents the greatest potential headache. House of Lords reform is first up. New Labour has yet to tell us what role it thinks a reformed second chamber should have. The most likely reason is that it has no clear idea. The shrieks of indignation that greet any disagreement with government policy, however principled, suggest that it is unlikely to believe that the second chamber should have enhanced powers to scrutinise the executive and bring it to account. Yet any independent critic of our constitution will argue that, if we are to have a second chamber, those are precisely the powers that it must have.
The biggest test will come in Scotland and Wales. The government is in a predicament which is solely of its own making; however much it might try to find one, there can be no scapegoat if those projects blow up in its face. The Scottish Nationalists are in a no-loss situation; they will either win an outright majority in the new Parliament, or they will form the main party of opposition and be able to blame every failing of the new body on the government's refusal to give it enough power. The Welsh will find they have little more than an expensive talking shop, and will start lobbying for tax-raising powers, And who know what will happen in England? There is a real danger of English nationalism stirring into life as a result of devolution, yet the government has done nothing to forestall it.
If all that were not enough, there is the Euro. Gordon Brown won great plaudits for his parliamentary performance in 1997 in which he boldly declared that there are no constitutional objections to joining the single currency. All that counts is its impact on the economy - will joining create more British jobs and help trade or not? That position can no longer be sustained. At the launch of the Euro all the European leaders involved went out of their way to stress that the single currency is a political project which will only succeed if a political union is created. The row over tax harmonisation has only served to illustrate the direction in which Euroland is heading. It is now time for an informed constitutional debate: do we want to be part of a European federal union, or not? It will be interesting to see whether Gordon Brown will return to the House of Common to set the record straight.
What are the guiding principles?
So, the calm waters of the first eighteen months are over. The water is already choppy, getting rougher, and the storm clouds lie thick on the horizon. The issues are not small ones, which can be easily weathered. Does our future lie in a federal Europe or not? How are we to rule ourselves? How are we to provide for our old age, which for some of us lies decades ahead? How are we to look after the sick and the poor? What is the best family structure? How are we to bring up and educate our children? The answers to these questions will determine our nation's future for years, even generations to come. We are entitled - indeed it is our duty - to ask what principles the government will apply as it grapples to find its way through.
What is the Third Way?
Which brings us to the Third Way. New Labour is acutely aware that it lacks intellectual weight - that it is open to the charge that it has no guiding principles to sustain it in time of trouble. That is why it has flirted with, and discarded, stakeholding and communitarianism. Remember them? Both in their time, were the latest "big idea". Both are now out of favour. Unfashionable, if you like.
There have been signs that the Third Way was doomed to a similar fate - all the rage for a season, but then straight to the back of the philosophical wardrobe. It was mentioned only twice in Tony Blair's speech to his Party Conference. The Daily Telegraph reported toward the end of 1998 that New Labour strategists were urging that it be abandoned and that members of the cabinet were becoming "increasingly deriding in private" about it. And yet Mr Blair will not drop it. When Harold MacMillan addressed the South African Parliament he told them of "the winds of change" which would affect the history of their continent. Given the same opportunity, Mr Blair chose the Third Way as his theme. Does he believe that the Third Way will achieve the same historical resonance?
The problem with the Third Way is that nobody can say what it means. Thatcherism was different. It emphasised the "vigorous virtues": enterprise, aspiration, independence, loyalty to friends and family. There were those who considered that it should also have encompassed more openly the civic virtues, such as voluntarism, support for the wider family community, and concern for the disadvantaged. Since the 1997 election leading Conservatives including Peter Lilley, Francis Maude and David Willetts, as well as William Hague, have delivered a series of speeches in which they have sought to redress the balance. The concept of "civic conservatism", or "compassionate conservatism" as the younger George Bush calls it, is steadily gaining ground.
The main feature of the Third Way is that it is deliberately non-ideological. Robert Harris, writing in the Sunday Times, made the point that New Labour was treating pragmatism "as a matter of principle". Tony Blair himself has said as much. In his Fabian Society pamphlet, "The Third Way", he spoke of the need for "permanent revisionism" and said that "a large dose of pragmatism is essential". In other words "what matters is what works".
Pragmatism needs a defined objective
This may sound attractive at first blush. Those who stick rigidly to ideological dogma and formulae have often come unstuck. Flexibility has its virtues. However, it can never be a complete political philosophy in itself. The reason is that it lacks any higher vision or objective. You cannot judge "what works" except by reference to some outside criteria. Pragmatism is a means: it requires an end, if it is to be used with any benefit.
What then are the goals of the Third Way? The answer lies in what Mr Blair said before the 1997 election. He was asked what his main priority for the first term in government would be. His reply was, a second term. New Labour has no higher ambition for the people of this country than its own self-preservation in office. "What works" is therefore, "what will keep New Labour in power".
Those who protest that this is too cynical should note that it is New Labour that has set re-election as it over-riding objective for this parliament, not anybody else. Moreover, recent history bears this analysis out. The personality-driven fighting within the Cabinet has come about precisely because political principle has been sidelined. Mr Blair and Mr Brown make a virtue of the fact that there is no ideological difference between them. However, there are still "Blairites" and "Brownies" - in the absence of any philosophical disagreement those allegiances can only be based on personality and patronage. More tellingly perhaps, although there is such a creature as a "Blairite" - identifiable because of his (or her) loyalty to the Prime Minister, we hear nothing about "Blairism" - which would be a coherent body of political principle attributable to the Prime Minister.
Writing in The Times at the beginning of 1999, Michael Gove commented: "In this absence of a clear philosophical lead, with something to believe in, Labour politicians have tried to find someone to believe in.... There are only personalities trying to find the Third Way to the Second Term. But without First Principles."
This lack of principle would be bad enough in any age. However we live in a time in which we are being asked to take decisions which will determine the future of our country and our continent for generations to come. Internationally, we must consider whether political union in Europe will be an effective structure which it is desirable to join, or whether it is an idea that is already out of date and which is doomed to long-term failure. Domestically, the welfare state consensus which has existed since 1945 has disappeared. All parties are trying to find ways to combat the dependency culture which has been created, and which affects not only social security, but education, health, family policy and crime. "What works" over a five year period is not merely irrelevant, but likely to be highly damaging to our prospects of finding long-term solutions.
Whatever your political or spiritual creed, there can be no denying that we live in interesting times. In order to find our way through, we must form at least some idea of our ultimate destination. We need open, informed debates about the issues of our day. It is a sad reflection that genuine disagreements in good faith over particular issues should be regarded as evidence of damaging splits rather than as healthy and open discussion about the options that are open to us.
This, then, is a time for strong political leadership. That emphatically does not mean following a five-year plan of self-interest, or waiting until focus groups have had their say. The questions that we face are too important and complicated for that. This is the time for the courage to have an open and informed debate about the principles by which we are to live in the next century. Let us debate openly the principles of European political integration. What is the constitutional purpose of a second chamber? Should we look to a nationalised health service for all our medical treatment, or should we have an informed debate about the role that health insurance has to play? What impact does marriage and family breakdown have on welfare, education, crime, homelessness and housing requirements? Should the tax and welfare system be positively skewed in favour of married couples with dependents?
These questions raise significant issues of principle and morality. The Third Way is not a sufficient tool to deal with them. It is time for Mr Blair to develop "Blairism", and to engage us all in a debate about our future.
Related links
Ten reflections on the future of the Conservative Party by Simon Chapman
| |
