Speeches & Articles

Old tunes of the new politics

Published: The House Magazine, 31 May 2010

Following the sad and often depressing days of the last Parliament, the talk in the broadcast media and around the Palace of Westminster — as well as those writing endless columns in the newspapers — was all about 'new politics'. But not quite the new politics that has emerged.

There is no question whatsoever that the coalition is, in modern times, a new way of doing things. This, of course, is a new way of doing 'government'. It is not new 'politics', and certainly not a new way of operating within Parliament. Quite simply, the Executive is stronger than ever. It commands at its disposal the troops of two parties, rather than one; and its early weeks have been marked not by respect for, or engagement with, Parliament — but quite the opposite.

Major announcements on the constitution (and Parliament itself); the power of the House of Commons to remove the government; spending cuts; and the repeal of legislation which set up the Child Trust Fund have been announced outside the chamber. And — Lord help us — there was the leaking of the Queen's Speech. This cannot be considered a good start in the assertion of parliamentary sovereignty.

After all, we were debating just a few short weeks ago the idea of greater independence for Parliament and parliamentarians. There was going to be a refreshing new emphasis on greater independence, more free votes and an attempt to make a backbencher a participant, rather than an observer.

Well, for the Liberal Democrats, at least, they have the right to 'abstain' on key issues — which, stretching it a bit, might be considered to be greater freedom! As, however, they will be subject to the Conservative whip on all other issues, their previous tendency towards independent voting will have disappeared down the proverbial black hole.

Don't misunderstand me. I am a gamekeeper turned poacher. I was quite happy to have the freedom in the eight years I was in cabinet to get on with decision-making and to ask colleagues to use our majority — as it was at the time — to put through decisive and, sometimes, controversial measures.

It strikes me, however, that all the clamour leading up to the general election for something 'different' has been subsumed in the mesmerising atmosphere of the post-election agreement.

So here's a thought. Given that the combination of 'localism' and the Big Society requires a considerable readjustment of where accountability lies — of who to hold responsible for what — surely Members of Parliament should have a say in this revamped constitutional nirvana? Why not give MPs a role in the non-elected bodies at local and regional level that exercise decision-making over very large sums of what remains of future public expenditure? Why not have local community forums, where MPs play a seminal role in bringing together community and non-governmental bodies to take a radical look at how services are delivered; how best scarce resources can be pulled together and co-ordinated under what's become known as Total Place? In short, let's look at how we can bring about the communitarianism to provide some backbone and solid reality to the Big Society concept.

Instead of placing emphasis on MPs sitting around in Parliament, so as to prove that we don't have too long a holiday period, why not have us engaged, out in the community, where it really matters? After all, our presence in Parliament will, regrettably, be for much of the time symbolic rather than in the service of good government.

Oh, and could we also stop pretending that something is new when actually it has been tried before under a different name? Pupil premiums, for instance, were, ten years ago, Pupil Learning Credits. Parent-led schools were pioneered in 2000 in Dulwich. And a whole range of new entrants into education under the faith banner were allowed from 1997 onwards.

Finally where before, as a former leader of a major city council, have I heard the rhetoric of decentralisation — followed by cuts in funding, and the local authority being blamed for the consequences?

Coalition plans under fire

Published: Guardian Letters, 21 May 2010

Sir,

The announcement that the spending review for this year's public expenditure reductions will be next Monday (Report, 18 May) has a number of connotations. The Queen's speech is the following day; and in subsequent days there will be debate on the loyal address. It would have been perfectly feasible to make the statement to parliament on Wednesday.

It has to be asked why the new coalition decided at this early stage to go back to what they would no doubt describe as the "old politics" - avoiding proper debate and scrutiny and the questioning which would have been present had they made this statement to parliament.
 
Take this together with the decision to change the threshold for removing a government from a simple majority of MPs to 55%, Nick Clegg's making a major statement on the future of parliament outside parliament, and the packing of the Lords with coalition peers - and the coalition's stumbling first steps in relation to what everyone agreed should be a fresh start for parliament appear to be in entirely the wrong direction.

Rt Hon DAVID BLUNKETT MP (Lab, Sheffield Brightside & Hillsborough)

Budget position

Published: Times Letters, 19 May 2010

Sir,

Everyone will wish Sir Alan Budd well in his task of leading the new Office for Budget Responsibility. It is, however, a daunting task. Decisions on growth and likely borrowing requirements are not easy to reach without inside knowledge of government thinking as to how the balance bertween reductions in public expenditure and increases in taxes will affect economic activity.

In simple terms, the more that the Government cuts, the less economic activity is generated — both from the public services and, inevitably, through the private economy, which is so often dependent on that public expenditure.

As a consequence, the decisions on likely growth are directly affected by the extent of the reductions in public expenditure and the restraint on private expenditure by any tax adjustments.

This is why, although the idea of an independent Office has merit (as well as being politically astute), it can never truly be "independent". To ignore the reality of the impact of decisions taken by the politicians is to place the new members leading this Office in an impossible position.

Rt Hon DAVID BLUNKETT MP (Lab, Sheffield Brightside & Hillsborough)

Speech during congratulations to the Speaker on his re-election

Source: Official Report, House of Commons, 18 May 2010

Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab): On behalf of Back Benchers, Mr Speaker-Elect, I should like to congratulate you, and I should like to thank the Father of the House (Sir Peter Tapsell) for reminding me that I was only 12 when he was elected to the House. That has made me feel a lot younger.

Mr Speaker-Elect, you held the Chair for 10 months in the last Parliament. We remember that, as you described this afternoon, you were even handed and fair to all major parties and between Members. You were also rigorous, so I shall be brief.

One of the things that you advocated and that was debated at length was the need for new politics. This House must be able to hold the Executive—the Government—to account more effectively. On many occasions with my own Government, you allowed to be called to the House through private notice questions Ministers who did not report to the House things that they had announced in public before the House had had a chance to meet. I hope that that continues, despite the fact that it would appear that three major constitutional announcements that relate to the House—to the voting system and the upper Chamber, on expenditure cuts and on changes to how the House might rid itself of a Government that no longer had the confidence of the House—all appear to have been made prior to Parliament convening next week. One of those announcements was made only 48 hours before it would have been possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to report directly to the House.

Mr Speaker-Elect, we look forward to you defending our interests as Back Benchers from whichever party, but we look forward most of all to your being able to reassert the ideas that were promoted before the last general election—that we should not be engaged in fixes and we should not have the old caballing, and that we should have open, honest, forthright debate and that parliamentarians should genuinely be able to hold this new coalition to account.

Labour must accept the judgment of the people and begin to build up trust again

Published: Yorkshire Post, 12 May 2010

There can be few tasks in life as thankless as being Prime Minister.

This is true in spades when you are dealing with a global recession in which everywhere else in the world is affected – but your own electorate has no-one else to blame but you.

That is why everyone, including those who have been vitriolic about Gordon Brown, should have the decency to say "thank you" for his tremendous contribution to getting nations to work together over the last two years to combat what otherwise would have been a global depression.

It is now the moment for the Labour Party to reflect on what has happened – but far more importantly, what the future holds.

There isn't a Labour supporter who would not rather see a Labour Government than David Cameron's Tories take over. That isn't at issue.

I, above all, appreciate how upset many good people will be that we couldn't thwart the Conservatives. But I'm convinced that winning clear support has to be better than resorting to temporary and fragile stitch-ups. The behaviour of the Lib Dems throughout all this has been nothing short of scandalous.

What has been taking place is exactly what we would get if we had fully-fledged proportional representation. The alternative vote is merely a modest tweak to what we have now, with single-member constituencies and each MP having a majority of the votes cast in their area.

Anything beyond that and we have the kind of chaos we've seen since last Thursday after every election – with the Lib Dems playing the pivotal role in an endeavour to get anything they wanted and to prevent anything they didn't!

To have a functioning democracy, you need a number of essentials. You need the consent of the people (in my view, that means those who got the most votes and the largest number of seats must – even with a minority – come closest to this).

You need a form of stability that allows you to make decisions, not on a nightly basis depending on who votes which way in the Commons, but with some certainty about a coherent programme and the ability to govern.

Thirdly, you need to last long enough for the electorate to be able to make a sensible decision when we do come to voting again. I would have hated to see Labour punished for having hung on to office in the face of a rejection, painful as it is, by a substantial proportion of the voters.

I want an open contest for the new Labour leader. A real debate about what we stand for; whose voice we are reflecting in Parliament; and a radical vision of the future that genuinely responds to the needs and aspirations of the British people.

Politics has to be more than manoeuvres inside the Palace of Westminster, or deals struck between political parties who normally wouldn't give each other the time of day. That's why I believe that regenerating and rejuvenating a connection with people across the country, creating a real trust in and belief that politics can change the world from the bottom up, is the way forward.

In the present situation, it is also possible to mobilise within Parliament against the most unacceptable and unpopular measures. In other words, to reflect the fact that whilst the Tories have the most seats, they didn't win the General Election outright.

So, it is possible to protect the most vulnerable against the worst cutbacks and damaged public services; and at the same time present to the electorate a real alternative of hope and optimism and a future majority Government.

In the end, of course, democracy is about three things.

It's about politicians hearing and reflecting the will of the people; electing those who we believe will reflect our will and our voice most clearly; and, difficult as it is for those at the receiving end, it is also about the ability of the electorate to remove a government. After all, the claim of every dictator resisting removal from office is that only they are the ones who can "provide stability".

That is why I have been arguing since last Friday that we can forge a new trust and connection with the electorate – but it has to be by accepting the verdict of the people. For us in Yorkshire, the
challenges are clear. We have a population the size of Scotland; but we do not have the share of the national cake allocated to the Scots. We do not have a separate Parliament; and we do not have a minority party prepared to do a deal purely on what is in the best interests of Yorkshire.

That, regrettably, has not been on the Lib Dem agenda – nor, as far as I can ascertain, has it been in the minds of the Lib Dem MPs in Leeds or Redcar on Teesside.

Defending the interests of Yorkshire people and Yorkshire businesses is therefore down to all those who care about and seek to provide a voice for our area. On the economy, on public services and investment and, of course, on skills and jobs for the future, we rightly should be judged on how we speak up for those we represent.

It's time for party to reflect on result

Published: The Sun, 12 May 2010

Now is the moment for the Labour Party to reflect on what has happened - but far more importantly, on what the future holds.

I appreciate how upset many good people will be that we couldn't thwart the Conservatives.

But winning clear support has to be better than resorting to temporary, fragile stitch-ups.

My view is that the electorate's verdict was not that they wanted to sweep Labour away, but they were rejecting Labour as the governing party and Gordon Brown as PM. A loss of 91 seats is testament to that.

Since that long night, all parties have been on manoeuvres - and the behaviour of the Lib Dems has been nothing short of scandalous.

This kind of chaos - with the Lib Dems trying to get anything they wanted - is exactly what we would get if we had fully-pledged PR.

To have a functioning democracy you need the people's consent. In my view, that means getting the most votes and seats.

You need stability that allows you to make decisions in the long term.

The electorate also has to be able to throw out the Government. I don't want Labour punished for hanging on to office.

Being PM is a thankless task, especially in a global recession. Everyone, including those who have been vitriolic about Gordon Brown, should have the decency to say "thank you" for his tremendous contribution to getting nations to work together to combat what otherwise would have been a depression.

The manner of his dignified departure is the measure of the man.

Winning clear support is what Labour needs to do again

Published: Daily Mirror, 12 May 2010

There isn’t a Labour supporter who wouldn’t rather see a Labour Government than David Cameron’s Conservatives take over. That isn’t at issue.

Above all I appreciate how upset people will be that we couldn’t thwart the Tories.

But I’m convinced that winning clear support has to be better than resorting to temporary and fragile stitch-ups.

We all want to regain a majority Government as soon as possible, where, under new leadership, Labour regains the nation’s trust and support.

It would be a betrayal of our constituents if we failed to win over the voters to carry us back into government and avoid being on the fringes of politics for the next two decades.

A clever internal fix is not the politics of the future.

The behaviour of the Lib Dems has been nothing short of scandalous. This kind of chaos – with the Lib Dems playing the pivotal role in a bid to get anything they wanted and prevent anything they didn’t – is what we would get if we had fully-fledged PR.

To have a functioning democracy, you need the consent of the people. You need stability that allows you to make decisions – not vote by vote, night by night in the House of Commons, but in the long term. And you need to last long enough for the electorate to be able to make a sensible decision when we come to voting again.

The electorate has to be able – as painful as it is – to throw out the Government.

I don’t want Labour to be punished for having hung on to office in the face of a rejection by a substantial proportion of the voters.

I want an open contest for the new Labour leader. A real debate about what we stand for; whose voice we are reflecting in Parliament; and a radical vision of the future that responds to the needs and aspirations of the British.

Politics has to be more than manoeuvres inside the Palace of Westminster, or deals struck between political parties who normally wouldn’t give each other the time of day.

Reconnecting with people across the country, creating a real trust in and belief that politics can change the world from the bottom up, is the way forward.

A Lib Dem pact risks Labour's survival

Published: The Guardian, 11 May 2010

The first thing all of us from the left of politics should say is, "Thank you". Thank you to Gordon Brown for his 10 years as chancellor, when we had the most benign and stable economic environment of any similar period in our history. Thank you for taking a world lead in helping to avoid the economic meltdown becoming an unstoppable depression. It is an act of considerable dignity and statesmanship to have stepped aside in recognition of the need – whether with or without the Liberal Democrats – to forge a new future for the left of British politics.

My belief is that it is untenable to create a rainbow alliance, dependent not just on the vagaries of a Liberal Democrat party prepared to get into bed with whoever is offering the most, but also the Nationalists or Ulster representatives – who could pull the plug on a coalition of the defeated at any time. This would result, almost inevitably, in a massive defeat for Labour at the hands of an electorate who would blame us for flouting the will of the substantial minority.

Of course, the deficit reduction strategy has meant that the party leadership has felt the obligation to take any and every opportunity to stop the Conservatives undermining the legacy of the last 13 years. The devastation they are bent on causing to the most disadvantaged communities in Britain must be avoided. But we can do this by building a sustained campaign outside as well as inside the palace of Westminster.

Let's face it. As far as the public are concerned, we have become the establishment. Time now, therefore, to renew, to re-engage with our radical roots, to reach out and engage those of goodwill in offering a genuinely progressive agenda, laying aside the artificial division of old Labour and Blairism.

It is still entirely possible that, despite their flirtation with us, the Lib Dems will join in some form of partnership with the Tories. This would change the landscape of British politics for the foreseeable future. It is our job to grasp this as an opportunity and not see it as an unmitigated disaster.

Protecting the people we serve would have to be uppermost in our minds. That means exposing every duplicity, every supposed "saving" that turns out to be a cut in services. It means mobilising progressive forces at community level to resist the damage which would otherwise be done to the fabric of our society.

It also means a reassessment of what, at a very basic level, the Labour party is for, on whose behalf it speaks, whose voice it articulates in our globalised, consumer democracy. This is a more profound question about the role of government – and the argument that Labour needs to articulate in the period ahead.

The focus may continue to be on the arithmetic in parliament. But politics is about the participation and engagement of the wider citizenry – to miss that point would doom us to irrelevance.

It used to be the case that government's role was the defence of the nation, foreign relations and basic law and order at home. In the 20th century, this changed to encompass the welfare state, the economy and, with the exception of the 1980s, unemployment and social regeneration.

To fail to understand that we are moving into a new phase would be to fiddle while Rome burns. We need a government which, yes, guarantees basic standards in public services, but which also steps in to protect people's wellbeing as they take part in our consumer democracy – particularly online. A government which does not pretend it can cure all of our ills, but which enables people to equip themselves for a thriving, rapidly changing society.

This is not David Cameron's "small government". It is very different – a government that is on the side of the citizen, and citizens themselves who understand that, just as government does not seek to influence every aspect of their lives, so it is not responsible for everything that might be wrong in their community. It is about giving people the wherewithal to make decisions for themselves – and people being ready to shoulder that responsibility.

The Labour party's survival will be by dint of becoming a party of the future, not a rump harking back to the past. If we do not change, we will suffer greater reversals in the years to come. I don't believe that this will be our fate – we have too many forward-thinking people within our ranks who know that Labour must never abandon the aspirant or desert the most vulnerable. Now is the time for them to step forward and show that they understand the scale of the task that lies before us in reconnecting with the British people and articulating the voices of those whom our party was founded to represent.