How has Labour changed the consensus?

Unless David Cameron is outed as a pederast within the next couple of years, I think we can safely assume Gordon Brown has lost the next election.

This question rests on the assumption that the 'success' of governments is ultimately judged by how they have changed the national consensus, by what they have put in place that any incoming opposition will not be able to reverse. It seems universally accepted that Atlee and Thatcher did more to change Britain than any other peacetime 20th century Prime Ministers.

What have Blair and Brown put in place that an incoming Conservative government cannot or will not reverse? The minimum wage, yes, and devolution isn't going away any time soon, but otherwise? Can anyone convince me that Labour has not squandered its time in power?

It used to be accepted (as recently as 2005) that they'd won the case for higher public spending and higher taxation. In the current economic climate the tide seems to be turning against that argument.

The conservatives have finally got it that, however it is provided, the NHS must remain free at the point of provision, there is no way that opt-outs, insurance schemes or anything that changes people perception of that free at the point of provision. (Of course labour have completely swallowed the market driven, private provided NHS that the Tories created as a first step towards privatisation).

In answer to the original question: Northern Ireland.

Civil partnerships. The status of gay people in Britain seems very different from what it was.

Or to extend on Marcello's, Unionism in general seems to have more or less gone by the wayside. the tories would now be as happy as anything if the non- English nations drifted off and left a tory daily mail reading england to keep them in power for 100 years.

Minimum wage is irrelevant. Inflation will hack it into the bunker and the Tories won't bring a sand wedge.

Devolution is more interesting. At the next election Labour likely to be wiped out in Scotland and Tories won't hold any seats either.

Gay rights is a good one, yes. Northern Ireland maybe as well but I'm not sure it quite fits into the sort of consensus I'm talking about. Maybe it does.

Labour have gone further in involving the market in both public health and education and have done so with enthusiasm. I worry they have made it easier for an incoming Tory government to sell off the NHS piece by piece. I'm not convinced the NHS will continue to be free at the point of use at all times, especially if Cameron has a large majority in his second term.

I agree with DC's last statement.

Does anyone know if John Prescott is talking to the conference today, and if so, when? I would like to see that.

(Actually the NHS is already not free at the point of use at all times, eg dentistry. It's not inconceivable this model could be rolled out elsewhere).

I agree.

How come it is so hard to get a basic schedule of what is going on at this conference? The Guardian website doesn't have one for instance. Nor does the Labour Party!!

bbc website does

though yeah it took me fucking ages to find yesterday

here! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7618664.stm

The economy is in downturn, and the only option that seems to gather momentum is to vote the Tories in, who will bleed the working classes until the recession is paid up, with the underlying concensus of "well, you can't expect the rich to voluntarily pay more than is reasonable can you?"

But, don't mind me. Carry on. See you in ten.

The shred of hope I am clinging to is that 10 odd years of Tory rule will not be as bad as last time because the Tories essentially have the society they want already. I'm 100% sure this is naive and wrong but it doesn't stop me clinging.

I don;t get how the T's can disavow all the 'unpopular' policies from then (Clause 28, Poll Tax, Falklands, etc), and yet still be worshipping the ground Thatch walks on...

Disavow the Falklands??

OK, I was being fanciful there.

Working Class already bled dry

^real talk

I think this "working class bled dry" thing is unhelpful, it obscures the reasons why working class people vote Tory, which they do in significant numbers, probably even more of them this time round.

Considering Brown's last widely-reported action as Chancellor was to cut income tax for everyone in the country and raise it for the poor, it's not an argument Labour can win.

When was the last time you heard prominent Tories mention Margaret Thatcher, incidentally? It seems like Cameron is trying to disassociate himself from her, rather successfully since Gordon Brown seems to quite like inviting her round for tea.

Think this also depends on definition of working class, economically rather than culturally speaking

Cameron is not "The Tories"

not really.

SURE START, ffs!

SURE START!

FREE NURSERY PLACES! PATERNITY LEAVE! FAMILY TAX CREDITS!

You're not a parent, are you, Matt DC?

It seems to me that not only is all this laudable, principled, effective, and left wing, but also will not be reversed by the Tories, but may even be extended. We have the main parties competing to see who can be most

I could have mentioned Baby Bonds as well, but I think the Tories will scrap them (IF they get in).

who can be most ...

family-friendly.

Don't know what happened there.

See how "Credit Crunch" has gone from defining the difficulties that Mortgage providers and/or banks and/or building societies have had in refinancing loans that are higher than their assets, and now means a sharp increase in petrol/food/holidays for everyone.

When was the last time you heard prominent Tories mention Margaret Thatcher, incidentally?

Last month...

You don't think family tax credits will be reversed? I expect the tax credit system will be one of the first thing a Cameron government takes a look at and they may well junk it or at least 'replace' it with something else.

Paternity leave is consensus now, I think, or at least difficult to reverse. The rest can be quietly junked because Labour has kept it relatively quiet in the media.

I think the social consensus on whether mothers should be able to work has shifted massively, although Labour obv can't take all the credit. And instead of condemning them, the Tories are actively seeking to appeal to this constituency.

I think there has also been a massive shift in Tory (and wider societal) attitudes toward gay rights, and diversity and equality issues more generally.

I bet you five pounds the Tories don't get rid of tax credits.

You won't be able to afford it, when they do.

Apparently Prescott is not talking today after all? Pity. I suppose his act was part of the Blair era.

NICE!

(That is the national institute for clinical excellence, not my opinion on Labour's record)

Despite its constant trashing by the Mail/Express, this, again, has been an effective, principled and left wing reform. Instead of prescribing being based on the marketing budgets of BIG PHARM, it's based on what actually works.

And the Tories won't get rid of it, either.

The Tories have already been attacking the tax credit system and pledging to do away with it, but yes anything with 'family' in it is much harder for them to get away with scrapping.

I think diversity/equality/gay rights issues have improved to an extent, but not across all minority groups and maybe not in all areas of the country. A lot of this is media-driven as much as politician-driven. In some cases (ie Muslims) the reverse is true.

Free bus rides for the elderly?
Free TV licences for the over 75s?

Can't see the new caring sharing tories getting rid if them.

I think there has also been a massive shift in Tory (and wider societal) attitudes toward gay rights, and diversity and equality issues more generally.

I think diversity/equality/gay rights issues have improved to an extent, but not across all minority groups and maybe not in all areas of the country. A lot of this is media-driven as much as politician-driven. In some cases (ie Muslims) the reverse is true.

^^both true (would blame the media much more than politicians). this is not to say that racist/sexist/homophobic attitudes don't persist within the tories - obv they do! - but it's not the party's public face, and i don't believe they'll make policy based on those attitudes. social attitudes have been where the consensus has really shifted, though i'm kind of hesitant to credit labour with that - think they would have shifted anyway. (and yes i'm fully aware that there's a whole load of shifting left to do, esp wrt eg muslims.)

I do think the consensus has also shifted on the overall level of tax and spending, although it's not as clear cut as I (and you?) would like.

The Tories still don't dare commit themselves to specific tax cuts or even that taxes will come down at all. They claim that this is because they won't know the fiscal circumstances, but really it's because they don't want to go into an election saying they're going to cut spending. Hence all the "efficiency" guff. So the public, and those that work in the public services, have got used to LARGE increases in spending, and look at the fuss they make when Labour have to moderate the rate of increase. If spending were to actually FALL on health or education, I think there would be uproar.

The Tories haven't made the intellectual argument that the state needs to shrink its activities in these areas (and most other public services).

Just this vague "share the proceeds of growth" line.

I wonder if they'll do anything about car tax? Mine goes down to £20 a year next year from whatever it was last year (£100?).

I think if you look worldwide, earned-income tax credit systems tend to be a right-of-centre policy. BUT, they are also a really good idea, and redistributive. They're one of the new bits of new labour that I actually agree with (compared with, say pfi).

I think they're easy to attack when in opposition, because you get newspaper stories on how people have to pay back stuff because of maladministration.

I think in power, it will be different, and it's also very hard for a conservative party to say "No, we think we should KEEP your taxes, not give them back."

social attitudes have been where the consensus has really shifted, though i'm kind of hesitant to credit labour with that

They deserve some credit though - for forcing the age of consent issue through with the Parliament Act, and also finally removing Clause 28 (which still garnered support from high-profile Tories when Labour moved to get rid of it (e.g. Boris, for one)).

As Gordon Brown had stealth taxes, George Osborne will have stealth tax cuts and spending cuts. The Tories' main line of attack against Brown is that he has a) over-borrowed to meet spending targets and b) spent everything during an economic boom with nothing left over for a recession, leading to more borrowing/taxation. They are laying the ground for shifting the consensus in favour of tax and spending cuts, and they will be successful.

I agree with the lex, about social attitudes changing.

He also says "this is not to say that racist/sexist/homophobic attitudes don't persist within the tories", and mentions Muslims as a group about whom attitudes must still change.

As far as I understand, some of these attitudes also persist within the ranks of prominent / influential / vocal Muslims, though that is not to be confused with 'British Muslims' in general.

xpost with Matt DC

I agree that they're laying the ground, but I don't think they've made their case, and the fact that they're so circumspect about it supports that view. I don't think they will be successful.

ps We haven't had a boom. We've had steady growth, with good ol' Keynesian countercyclical spending. (Actually, that the Tories are criticising Brown for not having the funds to do good ol' Keynesian countercyclical spending this time is a shift in consensus too.)

I think the current finacial climate, and the popular response to it, is quite interesting. There is a definite, if incoherent, shift to the left in the air, I reckon. People hate bankers, want windfall taxes, want more regulation not less etc. I wonder how that will play out in the political sphere, as it goes against the "narratives" of all three parties to some extent, but obviously causes most problems ideologically for the Tories. It was notable that they had almost NOTHING to say last week, other than to oppose the moratorium on short selling.

You'd think there would be an opportunity for some populist moves on someone's part.

A growth of what?

Wages?

Real GDP, dude. I'm being conventional.

My apologies I only get paid in wages. Pity some of this 'growth' doesn't appear in the old pay packet

Well, you've also had steady growth in real wages. If you're talking about distribution, then it's complicated, but I think we're probably on the same side.

Also, I was replying to Matt DC repeating Tory economic illiteracy about booms, not whether economic growth helps people at whatever level of income they're on.

I don't believe there has been a steady growth in real wages for a second. The physical number may be larger but in real terms I don't see that at all

I'm also confused by the usage of GDP since it includes consumer borrowing and spending. Also nominal rises in GDP, do they take into account inflation? Or more accurately, money supply?

Yes one thing I have avoided here is the water-muddying observation that the consensus seems to be swinging against free-market liberalism. Whether this is long-term or not remains to be seen. I've avoided it because it's not a party political issue - Labour haven't been interested in reversing it and the Tories certainly won't be.

In fact, that great consensus weathervane the LibDems missed a trick by not getting onto this in a big way. And even the LibDems have now shifted from campaigning on tax rises to campaigning on bottom-up tax cuts. Their share of the polls has gone down but that might be as much to do with Clegg being a bit rubbish as anything else.

Is Clegg even real?

Ian? Don't you have a book on economics to be writing, and not mucking about on the internet?

xpost

(Fletcher, we're a bit off topic here, but Real GDP growth = nominal GDP growth after taking into account inflation. I don't know quite how they do it, but there's a GDP deflator thing. Real wage growth = nominal wage growth - RPI, and it rose steadily from 1997 to early 2007. I think the issue is around the distribution of those wage increases, which, as I said, is actually very complicated, but I would think that we agree that more of the increase should have gone to those at the lower end. We should probably shut up so as not to derail Matt's thread.)

in light of the current economic climate, i think predicting where the consensus will imminently swing is a fool's game

introducing freedom of information act was pretty good.

has the next election really been lost already? two years is a long time.

13 months ago, Labour had a huge lead in the polls, and people were saying Cameron was finished. Stuff happens. Times change. What are the odds on a Labour victory? I'm really tempted to retract my fiver above and stick it on.

6/1 for an outright majority is the answer. In a two-horse race. Hmmm.

13 months ago house prices were still rising and no one knew what a credit crunch was.

Stuff happens. Times change.

My point exactly.

(I don't think anyone knows what a credit crunch is now, either.)

13 months ago, Labour had a huge lead in the polls

Not actually huge: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/aug/27/uk.conservatives1 In fact small (5%), and narrowing, with the headlines warning that Brown risked defeat if he gambled on an early election.

One thing that has grown, over 10 years, is house prices. And if they are falling now, it is from a very, very high point. They are not going to come down to where they were.

In a way massive amounts of personal debt is part of the current consensus?

xpost

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2008/jan/29/polls

OK, a small but significant lead in the polls. Did you know Cameron was the least popular leader, behind Brown and Menzies Campbell, exactly a year ago?

My point stands that events change things. But we've moved off how Labour changed the consensus ...

(and you need to make a move at chess)

Pinefox, I think that's one area where Labour bought into the Thatcherite vision of a home-owning society, as she shifted the consensus. (Resentment of new property-owning class at negative equity of early 90s part of Labour's success in 97?)

The current policy moves towards shared ownership and big expansion of social housing (including council housing, if I understood the announcement correctly) may be part of a, perhaps unwitting, shift away from that.

To go back to DC's original question -- yes, I do think that Labour has somewhat squandered its time in power -- IF you start from the assumption that their intention / aspiration was to do progressive things that would move the politics of the country to the left (from a pretty right-wing starting point). But I don't know if one can start with that assumption in terms of their own intentions, as against party members' hopes. I think Tony Blair thought that he had indeed achieved a lot, but that the areas where he had fallen down were eg in not privatizing or modernizing *enough*.

also re Northern Ireland, how much was it a case of Blair running with Major's baton anyway?

or about Bill Clinton obv

running with Bill Clinton's baton?

smoking Bill Clinton's baton