Philosophical grounding for Labour’s future path

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/29/philosophical-grounding-for-labours-future-path

Version 0 of 1.

Letters: Michael Meadowcroft on the lack of intellectual rigour in politics, Jim Grozier on Prof Jan Zielonka’s ‘neo-medievalism’, David Newens on New Labour’s successes and Bill Britten on the party’s 2019 manifesto

All the analyses of Labour’s election defeat concentrate on the relevance of its policies and on the loss of a significant section of its class base. Daniel Trilling’s article is no different (Labour must resist the calls to use nationalism to gain power, Journal, 24 December). The flaw in this approach is that it focuses on the essentially ephemeral policies that are the outworking of the party’s philosophy, when it is a party’s basic values – its vision of the kind of society it seeks – that marks it out. Unless the policies are rooted in the philosophy, they are built on sand and can be blown away by every passing breeze.

This flaw is not confined to Labour; it applies to all the major parties. There is an abject lack of intellectual rigour across our current politics. We are bedevilled by superficial thinking, shouted slogans and short-termism. It is not easy to promote values and visions to the electorate, rather than ideas in manifestos that may seem attractive but, being governed by events, are obsolescent the day they are written. But I do not see any other way of rescuing our politics from its current malaise.Michael MeadowcroftLeeds

• “There is nothing wrong with calls for the left to talk about belonging,” Daniel Trilling states in his fascinating article. But belonging to what? The article suggests he is talking about Britain, but there are so many other entities people can belong to – bigger and smaller. Many of us, despite recent events, still identify more with Europe than with any nation-state, while the popularity of football clubs, for instance, suggests a large number of people also look to smaller units.

Couching the argument in terms of a single entity – historically, though not now, defined in terms of ethnicity – not only oversimplifies it; it also opens the door to racists and other bigots. Perhaps a better model is the one suggested by Prof Jan Zielonka of Oxford University, featuring overlapping authorities, divided sovereignty, multiple identities and governing institutions, and fuzzy borders – or, as Zielonka dubs it, “neo-medievalism”.Jim GrozierBrighton

• In Emily’s Thornberry’s pitch for the Labour leadership (Labour gifted Johnson this election. It can’t happen again, Journal, 19 December, I was saddened to read her comment regarding New Labour – “I disagree with much of what it did” – with no recognition of its massive achievements with the NHS, schools, Sure Start, minimum wage, the arts, etc. In seeking the votes of members, particularly those in Momentum, she no doubt felt obliged to distance herself from New Labour, albeit recognising its “deep political insight and absolute clarity of purpose”.

Whereas time moves on, lessons can always be learned and circumstances change, it would be wise for all leadership candidates to seriously review the fundamentals of New Labour, particularly its broad-church and pro-business stance. It is only through working with business and its competent handling of the economy that steady growth generated sufficient tax revenues to fund the 272,000 more NHS staff, which included 89,000 more nurses.David NewensMilton Keynes

• Bill Britten (Letters, 27 December) liked Labour’s policies at the last election but concluded that too few other people did. To me it is more likely that people did like them but feared, wrongly, that we cannot afford them. I would argue that, in fact, we cannot afford not to adopt such radical policies to make society less unequal and unfair, and to counter climate change.Jack IsbesterTiptree, Essex