New labour urgently needs a debate on where it goes next and no leadership contender can avoid hard decisions on domestic policy, says a former cabinet minister
THIS HAS the potential to be a vintage political year. Decisions taken over the following 12 months will determine the shape and direction of British politics for at least the next five years.
All three major parties face big challenges. For the Conservatives, David Cameron will have to show that he can move from being a credible leader of the opposition to potential Prime Minster. For the Liberal Democrats, the leadership of Menzies Campbell will continue to be the subject of heated debate: it would come as no surprise to see a new leader by the start of 2008.
But of course the big political event of the year will be Tony Blair's departure as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party. As yet we don't know if there will even be a contest for his successor. Personally I hope there will be. The Labour Party is not royalty and we don't go in for coronations.
Look back to 1992: John Smith was the firm favourite to take over from Neil Kinnock. Yet he faced a contest with Bryan Gould. John Smith won easily but the election campaign allowed him to articulate his views and strengthened his authority through his victory.
A contest now could do the same - and as we are in government there is a further crucial element that must not be ignored. We are not just choosing the next leader of the Labour Party, we are also deciding who will be the next Prime Minister of our country. We need to consider how the public would react if there was no contest. Will they question the authority of a Prime Minister who has not been voted into that position even by his own Party?
But whether or not there is a contest, it is important that in the months ahead there should be an open debate about the way forward. This is the right time for Labour to evaluate its period in office and determine the next steps it should take.
Leadership is not just about style, presentation and personality. Above everything else it is the ability to be in touch with the needs of the people and then to promote a policy programme based on a set of values and principles that reflect the aspirations of the public.
I know that an exchange of ideas worries some people. But it would be a huge mistake to try to stifle debate. The public wouldn't like it and the Labour Party would resent it. Surely it is far better to have a discussion about priorities than the alternative, which would be a new leader behaving like Moses coming down from the Mount, presenting a set of policies cast in tablets of stone for us to applaud and then slavishly follow.
Debate is vital in order to achieve renewal in office. It would also be a public demonstration of how we can combine continuity with change and in so doing maintain that broad coalition of support that lies at the heart of New Labour.
The Labour Party should feel confident about meeting new challenges in a united fashion. There are no fundamental ideological divisions within New Labour, although we should be prepared to acknowledge publicly that different currents of thought do exist. This means that while the political direction of travel is broadly agreed, the means, speed and ultimate destination are still to be resolved.
In the period ahead there must be no 'no-go' areas for policy discussion. A number of politically sensitive issues need to be considered as part of the transition to a new leader.
Let's take just three examples. First, we need to look carefully at our tax system. Many now believe that the overall burden of taxation is at the limit of public acceptability - a view that I have some sympathy with. We also need to be sure that we have in place a regime that rewards hard work and penalises environmentally harmful activity. But we also need to be aware that a shift to increase green taxation will need to ensure that the money raised is ring-fenced to be used to support action to protect the environment. Failure to do so will lead to allegations that the motive behind green taxation is simply to raise extra revenue for the Treasury.
Secondly, on public-service reform we need to identify in practical terms what the next steps will be in raising standards and improving the quality of public services. Given the record levels of public investment, our public services should now be reaching world-class levels - so we shouldn't be seeing only incremental changes, which is all too often the case at present.
This will mean getting away from broad statements that no one could reasonably disagree with, such as the need to have an education system that allows every child to achieve their full potential, and instead outlining what this would actually mean in practice.
For example, will there be real choice given to parents in deciding which school their child attends? Is there to be a greater role for the private sector in the delivery of public services or are they to be limited in some way? Do we want to see diversity and competition between the providers of public services? These are key questions, the answers to which will determine the very nature of public services themselves for years to come.
The third issue is what should be done about council tax. Introduced as a quick fix by the Tories to solve the problems caused by the Poll Tax, it is becoming an increasingly unfair form of taxation.
We need a debate about the changes necessary to raise revenue locally in a fairer way, alongside the granting of greater powers and freedoms to local councils to respond to the needs of local people. And that debate cannot be dodged by any serious leadership contender.
Debating and meeting such challenges over the coming months will show that Labour has grown in office. We need to come forward with practical proposals that clearly demonstrate that we are the party of aspiration and achievement while at the same time protecting and defending the most vulnerable members of our society.
And we will pay a high political price if we fail to do so.
