Martin Kettle quotes a former Whitehall mandarin saying that “the government has still not made clear what kind of Britain it is trying to create” (Rachel Reeves seized her moment – whatever the future brings, Labour’s economic course is now set, 12 June). He has a point, not wholly answered by Rachel Reeves. It’s the vision thing, and the ability to communicate it. It’s about describing what Labour is for, in a general sense, beyond a list of policy deliverables. Growth is important, but only as a means, not an end. “Securonomics” is interesting, but has no public resonance.
If people are now unsure what Labour stands for, it is because the task of ideological self-definition has been neglected. This is unlike 1997, which was preceded by a process of rethinking that produced New Labour and the “third way”. Something similar is needed now. There is a rich tradition of social democratic thinking in Britain to draw on, including RH Tawney’s argument for equal access to what he called “the means of civilisation” as the basis for a common culture.
