2 There is an elephant in the room and it isn’t Charles Clarke

I was interested to see that ex-ministers Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn had launched a website. It was, they said, to facilitate discussion as to how the government could renew itself. I thought it interesting that launching a website is now the modern thing to do in politics; in the old days it would have been a manifesto, or a political program, or at the very least, a rant in some cold drafty room http://www.the2020vision.org.uk/index.php/pages/have-your-say/the-2020-vision However, when I viewed the site I was struck by the first sentence of their mission statement

‘Politics is about the future not the past.’

Why begin with this ridiculous remark? - Especially from these two. As you all know, I’m not one to gossip, but I can remember when Milburn was part of a collective, running a bookshop called ‘days of hope’, known locally as ‘haze of dope’ – his politics at that stage was overtly based on historical materialist analyses. Clarke lived in Cuba for a while, in order to be part of history. As young men, both of these chaps would have been very insistent, that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. So, when did history become bunk?
Well, some might say, not me you understand, that if you had the ministerial records of these two, then you wouldn’t want to look too closely at history either. For example, Charles Clarke, according to his successor, failed to notice that the Home Office wasn’t fit for purpose. Also, when education secretary, he castrated the proposals for 14-19 educational reform contained in the Tomlinson report by committing the government to keeping GCSEs and A levels http://education.guardian.co.uk/1419education/story/0,15147,1330607,00.html . This piece of surgery has left the present secretary of state worried about the future prospects for the 14-19 diplomas (see above). However, I think the problem goes beyond an evaluation of the ministerial competence of these two politicians.

I think these two have the same problem as other government supporters, such as Anthony Giddens, who seek renewal http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2034138,00.html Their problem is that according to the Moses of new Labour, Phillip Gould; the first commandment of winning elections is thou shalt not be seen by middle England to be divided. So, how can it be possible for a modern political party to conduct an honest audit? Wouldn’t the passion, self criticism and disorder that any such exercise would inevitably entail, be seen as division. The new Labour answer is to maintain unity by agreeing that everything the government has done has been a complete success - everything has worked wonderfully, no mistakes, no failures - so looking back is pointless and unproductive. Why are there still problems? It can only be that the world has changed and this has presented us with new challenges.

This will not do. In my opinion, the government has indeed fashioned some major successes, for example, the massive reduction in unemployment, the sure start program, the upcoming raising of the educational leaving age to 18, all truly historic. However, there are other stories, the PFI deals, the failure of housing policy, increasing inequality and decreasing social mobility.
Unfortunately, it’s even more complicated than recognising good and poor outcomes. It’s not just a matter of what worked, it’s also about what might have worked better, what might have worked differently, what were the alternatives?

So, what chance a fearless debate? - Fat chance.

However, without a truly critical reappraisal, then the goal of renewal is not possible. The elephants of new Labour’s creation are in the room, they must be seen, spoken of, and come to terms with. I’ll go further; if the likes of Milburn and Clarke, living in their eternal rose-tinted present, really are allowed to drive policy, then the importance of looking back will soon become apparent, as ‘history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.’