The Wardman Wire

It wasn’t the game-changer Labour was crying out for – but Gordon Brown’s speech to the Labour conference today was a much better effort than many expected, and approaches, at least, the kind of argument and the kind of vision he needs to set out if next year’s election is to be a contest.

He opened by talking of changing the world: it was good, for Labour supporters, to see him lift his vision. But the bread and butter of winning for Labour is to flesh out that vision in a programme. He followed up with a long, relentless, deliberately extended drumming out of Labour’s many achievements in office. Labour does need to remind the public of this, but in a way that’s heard instead of making people tune out with boredom. I don’t know whether that’ll work. More importantly, from early on and throughout his speech he focused on the clear choice Britain faces next year, and again and again he cast that choice in terms of opting to favour the interests of the majority or those of a privileged few – surely the right light for him to try to throw on Conservative policies. He came back to that attack at the end of his speech, too, showing a determination to get the message across.

I liked the way he explained how he had acted in the financial crisis and to stave off depression: I almost thought this passage was too quick, and that he could gain by taking more time to explain this, impressive part of his record to the public in more detail. He is really missing a trick on all this. He told an anecdote about a complacent bank chief, for instance, telling Brown his bank was in fine shape – only for the PM to discover than, in truth, it was shaky. A big problem for Brown is that he seems to be part of the financial establishment and to be on the side of bankers – he needs to reposition himself as the angry, parsimonious and grumpy champion of the taxpayer against the banks, and he could usefully express more astonishment about actions he has had to take and more anger about what some banks have done. Alistair Darling’s planned legislation on bonuses is not nearly tough enough: it may not be morally admirable, but people want some of their anger taken out on rich bank employees, and Labour should be offering much tougher action. Anyway, if you believe in a fair society, huge bonuses aren’t just wrong where the recipient has been negligent. And finally, he expressed determination to recover for the public all the money lent to support the banks – but I wanted to hear more of this, and for him to paint a grim, almost horrifying vision of Brown as the inexorable public bailiff-in-chief with a debt to collect over five years.

He made some good pledges – the one not to cut spending on schools but to raise it, for instance, was important. But there was, as last year, a bit too much schemery, with quite a few good and welcome but relatively small ideas that are too forgettable and cannot amount to a big vision in themselves. Examples were the skilled internships and green work placements he offered.

On fiscal responsibility I thought he was good. Last year I was impatient with his technique of setting medium and long terms goals by legislation – a target alone does nothing to reach itself. I can see the international credibility argument for a Fiscal Responsibility Bill, though, and he promised a similar approach to achieving a high and sustained level of overseas aid. Perhaps I was wrong and he is right – still, I’d like him to explain why this use of binding pre-commitments is not gimmickry but substantial policy. The best point he made though – and something I’d like to hear more of – was to remind conference he had squeezed spending before, after 1997, while still achieving important policies like the New Deal and minimum wage. To argue he can play the same trick again is a good argument he should make more often.

Half an hour in was when the speech began to get really serious. He made important policy pledges: that the minimum wage and working tax credits will go up every year under him. This is more like the substance he needs to produce.

Bravely, though, and impressively, he has dared take on and take forward some of Tony Blair’s thinking with controversial proposals about housing for teenage parents – they will be given supervised accommodation and support, not simply the keys to a flat – and pledged the extension of Family Intervention Projects to Britain’s 50,000 “most chaotic families”. This is bold, interventionist talk that will displease much of the liberal left but that may offer a way to reconnect with core Labour voters. He hinted at applying the target-driven approach to improving public services more aggressively to community policing – an important idea that meets an increasing concern, especially after the Fiona Pilkington case.

Labour needs a really big idea, though – and Brown’s proposed “National Care Service” may be the sort of thing required. Long term care is of course a massive social and financial problem that causes fear among many families and wipes out savings – the way illness and injury did before the NHS. If Brown can put real flesh on this idea and convince people he has a way forward on care, votes will follow. The challenge will be the detail, but his pledge of free personal care at home for those most in need of it is a decent start.

Finally, on the constitution, his proposals to allow recall of misbehaving MPs and to abolish the hereditary Lords were minor but welcome. His promise of a referendum on the alternative vote system was a real surprise, however. I’m not sure I’m in favour of it, and the move has a flavour of cynicism – almost all his cabinet and Labour critics seem to be behind electoral reform right now – but it is bold. It was the confirmation, to me, that he may now at least dimly “get” the need for him to offer much more daring plans for the next Parliament.

“Dream no small dreams,” Brown said, quoting – well, I’m not sure yet whether it was Goethe or Victor Hugo. Warm, inspiring words for a Labour politician. More hard-headedly, they’re good strategic advice over the next six months. He’s finally offered some forward vision, and given some hope he can put forward big ideas. If this marks the start of a real change in Brown’s approach, and he can work this sort of thinking up into a convincing manifesto platform – who knows? We could yet have a real election next year.