Why did John Smith's big speech at 'Labour's local
government conference in Bournemouth last weekend get so much coverage in the
media? Certainly not because of its novelty. Mr Smith did little more than
repeat things he said during his campaign for the Labour leadership, in some
cases using precisely the same formulations.
To be sure, it was a coherent speech. There were some good
jokes and a couple of noteworthy rhetorical flourishes. But too much was dull
and predictable. Mr Smith is in favour of "change", against
"extreme ideology” and for a "new political approach" for a
"new political era": precisely what one would expect of any
politician in a modern democratic society.
Even his much-reported remarks about the irrelevance of
ownership in the modern economy were scant reason for fuss, even though, taken
literally, they make nonsense of his apparent enthusiasm for such non-state
forms of social ownership as co-operatives and employee share ownership
schemes.
According to Mr Smith, "In the Labour Party we see
clearly the merits of a mixed economy and the need for an active and creative
partnership between the public and private sectors.”
Those words could have been uttered by any Labour leader
since Hugh Gaitskell. More important, for the best part of a decade they could
have been uttered without fear of a serious reaction from the left.
Enthusiasm for extensive nationalisation has evaporated in
recent years: only a small minority in the Labour Party wants anything other
than a mixed economy, and the debate about the precise mix rouses few
passions. Like it or not, and contrary to the claims of the Tory press, Mr
Smith was not executing a stunning policy U-turn. He was saying that Labour is
a mainstream social democratic party, something that has been obvious for
ages.
Of course, it is sometimes necessary for politicians to
state the bleeding obvious but Mr Smith really should have done more last
weekend. Labour desperately needs to rediscover its sense of purpose and to
define a radical populist politics. The most important task is to develop
economic policies that command public confidence, yet Mr Smith did no more than
show that he realises this.
There was even less of substance on the other areas where
Labour needs to get its finger out. He said nothing about the future of the
welfare state or his vision of Europe after Maastricht. There was nothing new
on the environment or the democratisation of the British state.
No one expects a single speech to set the world to rights,
and Mr Smith will have plenty more opportunities to show that he understands
that there is more to radical new thinking than declaring that it would be a
good idea. For now, however, Labour's direction remains as ill-defined as it
was a week ago.
