Freedom, Security and Labour’s Vision for Government
An exploration of the ideology and strategy behind a possible Labour government
Freedom dominated the neoliberal politics of the 1980s to the 2010s. Shaped by the New Right, it was defined by individualism and free markets – but the old consensus is breaking apart, and the new big concept, ‘security’ is up for grabs. In fact, the left seem better situated than the right to shape this new consensus towards a larger state and, indeed, use this to achieve electoral hegemony. This piece explores how the Labour Party can do this by utilising both security and freedom to craft a vision that argues for the capacity of the state to do good, and so set the stage for a radical shift in UK politics.
The 1980s and Freedom
In 1985, in a speech famous for its denunciation of Militant, a Trotskyite faction in the Labour Party, Neil Kinnock developed some of the most interesting Labour thinking of the decade. Two years earlier Thatcher had achieved a landslide victory on a wave of individualist freedoms and nationalist sentiment. Labour had collapsed to its worst defeat since 1935, in desperate need of modernisation – struggling with the reality that ‘freedom’, not ‘community’, was the greatest desire of the electorate. The New Right’s politics of liberation, embodied by Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan, was defined as freedom from the state: from nationalisation, regulation and taxation.
Kinnock, in this foundational conference speech, attempted to shift the terms of the debate in Labour’s favour. ‘Freedom’, for Labour, should be a progressive opportunity, not an electoral hindrance, he argued. Thatcher had made the state both inefficient through an overreliance on unemployment benefits (thus high welfare costs) and oppressive by cracking down on the unions, often violently. Instead, freedom, to Kinnock, should have been guaranteed by a ‘servant state’, that enabled individuals to be free of ill health and unemployment, and so to pursue their individual goals.
Unfortunately for Labour, these ideas were overshadowed. The inner-party drama epitomised by the conference-floor fight between the leader and Militant was the only theme of interest to the media. Kinnock would be praised for it, for standing up to extremists; but, as a result, pressured into further open conflict. A divided house cannot stand, let alone articulate a radical vision of state-enabled individualism.
The right benefited from the new dominant theme in politics for the duration of the neoliberal consensus. From 1979 to the 2008 Financial Crisis, the Conservatives won four of seven elections – but more telling was the effect on the party that won the other three. Led by Tony Blair, Labour conceded ground on the capacity of the state, rarely arguing for the good of an active, interventionist government, preferring to concede that the market and individuals were, indeed, more efficient when the state butted out. They even extended this, expanding the role of the market in the NHS to an even greater degree than Kenneth Clarke as Health Secretary under Thatcher. The only directly redistributive policies were seen in Gordon Brown’s innovative tax credits, but even these were underplayed, later labelled as ‘stealth’ redistribution – a telling sign of a party uneasy about its socialist past. As the lady herself put it, her greatest legacy was Blair’s New Labour.
In Search of Security
But things have changed since the heady days of Cool Britannia and New Labour. The 2008 Crash ushered in a new era of crisis which has broken apart the sureties of Blair and Thatcher’s politics. TPI has covered this extensively in recent months, so I will keep it brief (for more, see PE#6 and Tom Egerton’s recent two-part series on polycrisis).
Successive catastrophes - the Eurozone Crisis, Brexit, COVID and the Ukrainian War - have revealed the inadequacies and insecurities in the neoliberal economy. Britain has proven uniquely vulnerable amongst the major economies to outside shocks like the war and pandemic. This, and the hollowing out of communities through outsourcing and deindustrialisation that was so evident in these communities’ Brexit vote, has made the past seven years one long rejection of politics ‘as normal’. Increasingly, a desire for security from these shocks and inadequacies is becoming the dominant idea in the politics of the 2020s and beyond.
Labour and the New Consensus
While right wing politics ultimately profited from the ‘freedom’ consensus, Labour and the wider left are well situated to take advantage of the nascent ‘security’ consensus. They will have to take advantage quickly, however, with a strong vision and decisive action.
Labour seem more aware of the shift in consensus than they were in the 70s. Already, the party’s policy rhetoric includes references to security – Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ slightly garbled ‘securonomics’ is an obvious example, seeking to reassure voters that Labour would prioritise economic security through energy independence, onshoring (wind and jobs) and fiscal responsibility. Elsewhere, the party is keen to be seen as the solution to rising concerns on anti-social behaviour and crime, framed as ‘A Stronger Future for Safe and Secure Communities’ on the party’s website. Security in traditional areas, then, but in economic vision as well, make it a core theme of its offer to voters. Whether it has the policies to back up these ideas is debatable, and the party has largely failed to build a consensus that they are the best option to take these ‘security’ ideas forward in government.
These are the nascent ideas a Labour government would be built on. The party is struggling to articulate a vision based on these, or any, principles, however, creating confusion about what the party, and its leader, stand for. A recent Ipsos poll found that 50% of adults don’t know what Starmer stands for - which is actually up 6 points from January. Not the sign of a party with a clear idea of how to take advantage of the new consensus.
In this, Labour could be helped by synthesising security and freedom as key ideas for their vision. Labour, shaped by a decade of internal party change and external crisis, are now more interventionist in their instincts than 1997, the last time they were preparing for government. They are, therefore, more likely to return to Kinnock’s faith in the state’s capacity to improve people’s lives. Framed in terms of security, this could look like: freedom from job loss, from broken borders, from high energy costs or energy dependence. State-enabled freedom through security, a positive counterpart to the potent negative message of the Tories’ ‘Broken Britain’ (a majority of Britons see Britain as broken and in decline). If Labour can articulate the state’s role in solving the issues revealed in the past decade then they, rather than the Tories, can benefit from the consensus. Labour are natural statists in contrast to the Conservatives, who have proven uncomfortable with a more interventionist Prime Minister in Johnson, choosing arch-Thatcher impersonator Liz Truss as his replacement.
More than anything, the Conservatives are unlikely to profit from this change because they are at the end of an electoral cycle, though the party’s lack of an ideological direction that fits the security consensus is important. No one party has ever won five elections in a row, and they are deeply unpopular, their brand ruined by austerity, scandal and Truss’ premiership.
Fear is an ever-present theme in British politics, however. Where Labour should look to synthesise state, security and freedom, the Conservatives will synthesise fear of Labour with the latter two themes. Until very recently, Labour were feared as a party of government and, while Starmer has detoxified their reputation, it is possible the Conservatives will manage to tar him with the same brush they did Kinnock, Miliband and Corbyn. If the economy begins to recover before the next election, as looks likely with inflation falling and the prospect of reduced rates in mid-2024, then Labour will be vulnerable to a shock defeat as in 1992 or 2015. If the Tories can paint Labour as economic incompetents, then the electorate may fear losing what little remains after years of decline and some minimal recovery. Better the devil you know, after all, has long been a theme in the anti-Labour vote – vital in 1992, as Gould has said (The Unfinished Revolution). Conservative protection from the insecurity of Labour’s fiscal irresponsibility or extremism could be a potent message in this scenario. This is especially true if paired with the idea of security from crime and ‘excessive’ migration, both issues which Labour is historically weak on.
So, Conservative campaigning could still prevent Labour from taking their opportunity. So too could an overdose of caution. In recent months, the party has been watering down the radicalism of a potential Labour government. This might well be necessary to win in 2024, it’s certainly the received wisdom. It will, however, cause issues once in office. The party is ceding ground, conceding that they can do little to change the country’s fortunes and so limiting the action they can take once in office, reducing their political capital before they even win the election. To emulate Thatcher’s electoral domination, Labour would have to hit the ground running with policies that signal change towards security, as the electorate desires. If not, they will go the way of the first Labour government in 1924, when Ramsay Macdonald led Labour to its first election victory but, faced with the economic and labour challenges of the 1920s, not dissimilar to those a century later, his government collapsed quickly and the party lost the ensuing election. The 1920s were another decade in which a political consensus was collapsing under the weight of successive crises. Starmer’s Labour will have to hit the ground running if it wishes to avoid Macdonald’s fate.
Conclusion
The right dominated from the 1980s to the 2010s, having seized control of ‘freedom’ as a concept while circumstances prevented Labour articulating an effective alternate vision. By contrast, all bets should be on Labour to take advantage of the change in consensus. The new big idea fits Labour ideologically, and proves awkward for the Conservatives, the former being a far more interventionist party on the economy. Additionally, Labour hold a strong polling lead, are led by a ruthlessly effective leader, and face a uniquely unpopular Conservative Party, all in contrast to the 1980s. Labour would do well to guard against Tory ‘fear’ arguments, however, and must take hold of the positive vision a synthesis of state-enabled security and freedom provides. Laying the groundwork and scope for a Labour government now will reap political capital later, even if it seems risky. Events have given Starmer the opportunity, as it did so for George Osborne and David Cameron in 2008-10. Once in government it will take effective, change-driven policies for the party to avoid its fate a century ago – a fate they may be racing towards with their current caution. Otherwise, there is little reason the most successful political party ever should not take advantage instead. Again.
