The stakeholder society and the politics of hope.
| Author | Brooks, Thom |
Alively debate has erupted since the start of the financial crisis about the future of centre-left politics in Britain. The initial problem may be economic in nature, but the best response requires serious thought about which choices are most preferable under difficult economic conditions. It is important to consider future funding priorities and how these decisions cohere with a compelling narrative of our shared political future. Challenging conditions present opportunities for re-examination of how to make the best of current circumstances and the vision of political society we want to achieve.
This message is not lost on those struggling to ensure a conservative British future. Witness the rise of so-called 'compassionate conservatism'. This approach does not explicitly endorse cuts as a welcome opportunity to achieve the ideologically-driven goal of a smaller state. Instead, compassionate conservatives claim they offer not ideological purity, but a just vision for the political future. The problems were then not the provision of education or health care, but the providers of these services. Compassionate conservatives peddled the fantasy that the state could only render services inefficient if not counterproductive compared with a rose-tinted blanket endorsement for the private sector and an underfunded, hamstrung 'Big Society'.
One response is to show this discredited political vision for what it is and expose its many flaws. This is surely one crucial part in rejecting such attempts by Conservatives to undermine the Britain that recent Labour Party governments have helped build and allow to flourish.
But a more fundamental response is to offer a more compelling, positive vision of the political future that can win hearts and minds. We must provide voters with a view of what we are for and not only what we are against.
Blue Labour and the politics of confusion
One possible alternative has been the 'Blue Labour' movement championed by Lord Glasman. This has been a drive to recapture certain 'conservative' values for Labour, such as 'family, faith and the flag' (Sandbrook, 2011). The argument is that the Labour Party is committed to solidarity and social justice. These commitments are not only political, but personal. Labour has long supported the ties that unite people together across the state, in the workforce and in the home. The concern is that Labour may have forgotten the fullness of these roots. It was said that 'New' Labour too quickly embraced neo-liberal economics and turned a blind eye to the costs of globalisation. New Labour may have got right the need for reinvention: no political vision can resist all change if it is to continue to capture broad appeal in the long term. But this was a reinvention too far. Labour is about bringing people together in the local community, the country and supporting international solidarity.
Blue Labour has begun to bear fruit. For example, the appeal to solidarity across the country easily lends support to Ed Miliband's vision of a 'One Nation' Britain. This is one of many policy areas where Labour's vision runs close to traditionally Tory perspectives. Similarly, the appeal to solidarity in the local community may have some overlap with David Cameron's floundering 'Big Society' vision. Both Labour and Conservatives support the creation of social capital. Their difference is that Conservatives expect--and, indeed, demand--that social capital will grow naturally to fill the spaces left behind by a retreating state. Labour accepts the need for providing support for social capital creation. Solidarity and social trust does not grow on trees. Nor can it develop overnight. It requires support both financial and otherwise over time, not unlike many other valuable goods.
Blue Labour has identified correctly that there are issues that should not be conceded to our political opponents. Conservatives are not the only ones keen to promote healthy family relationships. We have important differences in how we understand their promotion and we have a fundamentally different view of the family itself by embracing same-sex families, too.
But Labour can do even better. Our alternative cannot be based on the platform that 'we share those values also'. Where Blue Labour has broken from New Labour and Conservatives alike in its critique of neo-liberal economics, this has not developed into a sufficiently robust vision of political economy and nor, more importantly, a compelling narrative of the political future. The danger is that such a vision captures the right values, but not in the best way.
This is because voters already suffer from some degree of apathy and political disengagement: to become more 'blue' is to engender greater electoral confusion than does us favours. In fact, the promotion of 'Blue' Labour may risk highlighting the strengths of our opponents in our attempt to reclaim them for ourselves. This may be a worthy long-term strategy, but it is one we can scarcely afford with another general election looming.
Remembering the stakeholder economy
Labour requires a compelling political vision that captures its values in a distinctive way. The challenge is to build on Blue Labour's success without falling victim to its shortcomings. The answer is in defending the stakeholder society.
The idea has its roots in New Labour and goes much further. Tony Blair was an early exponent of the idea of a stakeholder economy indebted to the writings of Will Hutton (Hutton, 1994, Hutton, 1999). The focus was on the development of economic justice. Stakeholder theory arises within the context of business ethics. The argument is that the promotion of stakeholding helps guarantee accountability and transparency. A business is not a mere machine for profit creation. If...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
