http://www.flickr.com/photos/35952250@N02/ / CC BY 2.0
The left in Europe has been guilty of what can be described as the “politics of evasion”: it has failed to confront the fundamental causes of its vulnerability, loss of trust and élan in past years . . .
If social democrats are to recover their ability to set the political agenda in an era of insecurity, complexity and constant change . . . we have to face up to hard truths and, if necessary, shatter the cosy and comfortable consensus that surrounds the deliberations of so many fora which social democratic parties inhabit.
So states the summary document of the Amsterdam process, a two-year project aimed at no less than the “ideological renewal of European Social Democracy” and a “new revisionism for the 21st century”.
It’s a collaboration between two European progressive think-tanks, the Wiardi Beckman Stichting (the “scientific bureau” of the Dutch Labour Party) and the UK-based Policy Network.
Their initial publication, the Policy Network’s Challenging the politics of evasion: the only way to renew European social democracy, continues this take-no-prisoners rhetoric.
The writers seem at first glance equally critical of the “third way” revisionists (“embarrassed by the various accommodations made in the mid-1990s with the perceived realities of international capitalism and globalisation”) and of traditionalists (accused of “complacency” in their demand for “a return to the eternal verities and truths that the revisionists allegedly lost”).
This impression is probably incorrect, however. The Policy Network is pretty closely associated with the Blairite wing of the UK Labour Party. Peter Mandelson is its president, and two of the three authors of Evasion, Patrick Diamond and Roger Liddle, have previously worked with or for both Mandelson and Tony Blair. The Policy Network is also the secretariat for the Progressive Governance Network, which has been bringing together progressive leaders from around the world (including New Zealand) for over a decade, so it is hardly on the fringes of recent trends in the movement.
As the report continues, it becomes apparent that what it is proposing is a refurbishment of the existing “revisionist” approach, amending some misjudgments and correcting some overreaches. Below are the five dimensions of their “way forward”, with some of my impressions of what they are proposing in each.
Greater clarity about the politics of globalisation: comprehensive reform of global economic governance; active measures to promote responsible business behaviour; and going beyond the ‘enabling state’-as-training-scheme to a “new era of industrial activism” — while stressing that none of this means that the “big state is back”.
Coming to terms with the centre-right response to the financial crisis: where conservatives capture traditional social democratic territory, such as the need for active government during the global recession, progressives should ’stand their ground’ rather than moving further left in response.
Understanding the weight of anxiety about moral and social decline: although rhetoric such as ‘broken Britain’ is exaggerated, progressives should acknowledge the unease it reflects by rediscovering traditional narratives about what makes a good citizen and the politics of virtue, perhaps drawing upon the work of US moral philosopher Michael Sandel.
Confronting confusion about the politics of redistribution and fairness: by framing welfare rights and responsibilities in a way that aligns with what UK Labour minister John Denham has called the “fairness code” of the general population, taking into account desert, opportunity, and the avoidance of material hardship.
A bold plan for the future that captures the imagination of social democracy’s natural allies, new and old: a coalition of modernising institutions, working with sister organisations and thinktanks throughout Europe, drawing on the experience of the US Democratic Leadership Council that helped to elect Bill Clinton.
Apart from perhaps the first of these, it’s not clear that this amounts to much change at the policy level (as opposed to strategy and messaging), but it does represent an attempt to articulate a clear and comprehensive post-crisis progressive programme.
It will be interesting to see where the Amsterdam process takes these initial broad-brush propositions.
.png "Think tank?")
About a Blog
Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010Once again, there’s a handy About page that you can check out that’ll tell you all about the blog and how it works, so I’ll largely restrict myself to some less formal and more time-bound remarks. I’ll also reiterate a few points about how comments will work.
I don’t think of Policy Progress as a blog, but I do think of this blog as being an important part of Policy Progress. And for probably the next 3-6 months it’ll be the main place where you’ll see a lot of activity. So I want it to work.
To that end, I’ve got three main guidelines that I’m working to.
Under-Promise and Over-Deliver
That’s one mantra I learned from Helen Clark!
We’ve all seen blogs (and other internet projects) that start with a hiss and roar, only to peter out just as dramatically. I’m determined to avoid that.
For the time being, I’m going to stick to a schedule of two posts a week, one on Tuesday morning and another on Thursday morning. Posts will be up by 8.00am. I think having set days and times is useful to those of you who like to check the blog yourself rather than use an RSS feed or wait to be notified by the weekly email newsletter.
I’ve pre-tested this blog a bit, and I know I can’t simply churn out the kind of posts I want to write in a rapid-fire way. I actually think I could probably manage more than two a week, but I’m not certain of that. And I’d rather start modestly and increase over time, than have to pare it back. (And those who know me know I’ve got good, and positive, reasons for not wanting to overcommit myself over the next wee while.)
We’ll also have guest posts, as and when the people who have offered to submit posts start coming through with them. These will be published on a Wednesday (subject to supply).
Listen to Feedback and Be Prepared to Evolve
I’m very interested in what you think of how I’m doing and what I’m writing. I’ve made a commitment to myself that I’ll read and consider carefully the feedback you provide, either in the comments or directly by email (or in person).
Throughout the gestation period for this project, I’ve had a very clear idea about how I intended it to look and work. But I’ve been equally clear that once it went ‘live’ (i.e. now), Policy Progress was bound to evolve in ways I haven’t anticipated. I need to be ready for that and to accept that as a natural process – consistent, of course, with the basic proposition of “a policy ‘think-site’ devoted to developing and supporting progressive initiatives and ideas in Aotearoa-New Zealand”.
A Lively Discussion amongst Progressives
I hope people will be moved to comment by what I write, and I’d like the comments threads to be a valuable sounding-board and source of inspiration for me, and a positive and energising experience for those that participate in them.
But I’m not looking for a free-for-all.
Check out the Comments Policy. It says:
Comments that are just about running right-wing slogans and attack lines will simply not be published. Even if they’re not particularly nasty. That’s just not the kind of forum this blog is intended to be. (Thoughtful and specific critiques are okay.)
I’m aware that a new and rather niche blog doesn’t necessarily attract heaps of comments, and this policy will reduce the volume further. But I think that’s a price worth paying.
So those are my main guidelines going in, but your feedback is welcome on those as well as on everything else. Tune in on Thursday for our first ‘proper’ post.
Tags: blogging, Comments Policy
Posted in Overview | 8 Comments »