Compass - 16 comments

There is a lot of talk about Compass at the moment, and I had planned to write a piece before, having worked through their introductory statement from 2003 a couple of months back. Now, though, the 'open letter' (via) from Neal Lawson - a name we're hearing far more than we ought for a organisation that prides itself upon democracy, and which declared that 20 'key authors' contributed to the aforementioned document - to Tony Blair, has intensified the campaign against the Labour leadership.

Almost all the discussion concerning Compass seems to have been within the Labour ranks and has an unpleasant reek of factionalism. This explains the rather spiteful reactions from a number of those Labour bloggers who oppose the new group, but if the approach Lawson has taken here really is a sign of things to come, then (a) attitudes for and against will only harden, in an unseemly manner, and (b) he will be doing a disservice to his more thoughtful supporters.

Why? There's the personalised nature of the letter, the sanctimonious tone, the idea that a political project (i.e. 'New Labour') that won three General Elections (one way or another) and still speaks to many within the party, can be reduced to a 'closed conspiracy' in comparison to the simmering ragout of positive and principled ideas that makes up the as-yet-unpublished, and entirely untested Compass manifesto. And finally, there's the A-level-essay economics that permeates every Compass document I've seen, the obligatory digs at neo-liberalism (I used to use that a lot in essays - it meant The Enemy), the casual dismissal of the enormously significant but 'corrosive' Iraq intervention, and even the 'why can't we be more like Sweden?' lament that was all the rage in the early 90s.

What I'm keen for Compass to do in preparing their Manifesto is analyse what policies work and what can be achieved, rather than simply aggregating the preferred policies of, presumably, thousands of contributors. What depresses me is the analysis that stands out from all their so-far published documents, which is pretty much the following: "the most obvious failure of Thatcherism was its neo-liberalism, and its under-funding of public services. New Labour succeeded insofar as it spent more public money on public services - quality and performance being directly proportional to expenditure, expectations remaining constant, and yet complete public satisfaction remains elusive". The thought that New Labour might have realised, at some point - and this is not to deny the underfunding that really did occur pre-1997 - that public satisfaction was barely related at all to either the relative or the absolute levels of spending on the relevant services, and that - even if ham-fistedly - breaking down the barriers between the public and a centralised, impervious producer might be one way of managing expectations and increasing the public's choice, barely seems to have occurred to Compass at all.

Let's consider 'markets' - a word of power if ever there is one on our side. Markets sometimes-to-often fail to produce a mutually satisfactory outcome for economic actors, depending on your outlook. How might an organisation with new ideas (like Compass?) deal with this? They might encourage markets to work better, tackling inequalities and barriers to entry, and Compass suggest that this is indeed a concern of theirs, if not to secure that particular outcome. They might try to curtail the power of heavyweight private and public actors (monopolies, say) from interfering. They might add or improve regulation to a market, strong enough to prevent abuses, but with a light enough touch not to squash it. Unfortunately Compass confuse the issue, seeing free markets and big business (with attendant political power) as necessary companions, rather than a contradiction. If New Labour are tied to big business, then I'd like to see others advocate greater exposure of links, and greater investigation of monopolies, rather than rely upon the morality of individual politicians and an ideology that casts the two groups as implacable enemies.

There are so many ways in which the New Labour approach to public sector liberalisation has failed, and yet Compass is not pledged to correct those failures, but to play to its membership and eschew markets altogether in favour of business as usual - politicians at various levels, and civil servants, spending public money in as benevolent and insightful way as they can, in the hope that, some way down the chain, a citizen will feel the benefit. A model of democracy that empowers people for fixed terms, rather than one that actually gives a day-to-day responsibility to an individual or group, one that can be taken away if it is not carried out.

I should link to this excellent Stumbling and Mumbling article on the public and private sectors, before I forget:

Humankind has stumbled upon a technology which can often transform bad motives into good outcomes. It's called the market.

The important question is: how can we import this technology into health and education?

In this context, the public-private dichotomy is woefully misleading. Private sector monopolies are as bad as public sector ones; this is why Serwotka and Sinnott are right to complain about the PFI.
Instead, the important components of the market technology are feedback and competition. Success in reforming public services requires that these be used, not private companies. How far this is possible is, of course, another issue. But it's the big issue.

What also comes across from Neal's piece is the insularity, fear of economic change, and fear of globalisation:

When even white collar jobs can be outsourced to India insecurity and anxiety permeate every level of society ... this fixation with economic efficiency and globalisation ... tides of globalisation you show no desire to manage. What is the point of political leadership if it is not about dealing with the forces that help and hinder people's lives?

No, Neal, that is 'time warp stuff'. It's ludicrous to think that India and China are going to stop developing and allow our tiny nation to remain one of the world's largest economies just because our workers are frightened, having been convinced that international trade is a conspiracy by Big Business. Is it the fate of these faraway nations to remain poor, fed on our handouts, and denied access to our markets? Of course there is international regulation to be decided upon, agreements to be worked out, trade and aid to be increased, economic challenges, and economic opportunities. This is why it's unacceptable to push a programme based on a cosy 'socialism in one country', fear of the very forces that increase and spread wealth, and suspicion of - rather than partnership with - the USA.

The need to achieve equality - in some shape or form - motivates all within the Labour Party, yet there isn't much detail within Compass' declaration of aims, just as there hasn't been a sense of urgency from the past Labour administrations. It's ironic that one of the two policies Lawson gives these administrations credit for is the minimum wage, which, as useful as it has been, is an inadequate and potentially counterproductive approach to tackling poverty, as we have covered here. The question is whether Compass-ite Ministers would have the guts to tackle the benefits system and consider policies like Citizens' Incomes and carefully weighted flat taxes, which have all been thoroughly analysed on the blogosphere, instead of sticking with the cherished minimum wage policy, bumping up the rates, and seeing what - if any - improvement is seen in the Gini coefficient before rising unemployment takes its toll. It is the thought that Compass might at least try radical measures, even if they have to 'reclaim them for the Left' in the process, that might convince me they could succeed in a narrowing of income inequalities. Perhaps they are working on other innovations as we speak.

I don't think what I've written can be construed as a paean to, or an apology for New Labour - none is needed. Nor should it appear to be cynical, or hostile to new ideas. But if the mainstream Left were in such a state that it was incapable of generating ideas that don't sound dreadfully familiar - and a reliable delivery mechanism for putting them into action - how can we be blamed for looking further afield? It's unfortunate that the indications are that Compass is more concerned with winning over past/present Labour people than learning from the many changes, successes, and failures since 1979, and producing something fresh that might actually start to win supporters back from other political parties.

If Neal Lawson found himself unable to participate in a forward-thinking organisation of that ilk, recent evidence tells me that too would be a progressive step.

P.S. Apologies for the references to 'New Labour' - I'm using this usually pejorative term to encapsulate the political views of the leadership of the Labour Party since 1997, not as a straw man to 'big up' some alternative faction. Note that I've tried to avoid falling into the trap of labelling Compass as 'Old Labour', an entirely pejorative term I don't think I've ever used.

Update (02/07): Thanks for all the comments - was away over the weekend and have just approved them all. Will read them shortly.