- guardian.co.uk, Sunday 19 August 2001 01.02 BST
As the Institute for Public Policy Research pointed out last week, Labour needs to recognise that its own policy goals require a profound shift in its thinking. To stand any chance of abolishing child poverty and delivering the best public services in Europe the proportion of GDP going to public spending will have to rise significantly, which will require substantial increases in taxation. For social democrats the good society is characterised not only by high standards of public provision and the alleviation of poverty but also a collective commitment to progressive taxation. Tax is not a necessary evil but an expression of social solidarity. In a world where we were free to talk about political destinations, this would surely unite new Labour zealots and traditionalists alike. But lack of vision and fear of a tax revolt mean that rather than advocating such a good society Labour pretends we can have the spending without the commitment to pay for it.
As Kenneth Clarke is no doubt saying to Conservative constituencies, modern elections are won in the middle ground, which means contests are fought on the dull terrain of minor policy differences and exaggerated personality conflicts rather than radically different long-term visions. But the dichotomy between realism and vision is false and only the timidity of our political establishment (and the inanity of most journalism) stops us from seeing it as such. There is no reason why a bold, honest politician could not both accept the need to win consent for step-by-step change and argue for the ultimate objective of a transformed society. To reawaken public faith in our democracy we must reverse the current mode of democratic discourse. Instead of a politics of attenuated ends and opaque, mistrusted means we need a politics of noble visions and transparent means. In the words of Brazilian sociologist Roberto Unger, 'we must be visionaries to become realists'. It is the tensions between today's demands and our ultimate ideals that should inspire radical and creative policy.
There are other reasons for bringing Utopian visions back into politics. Being clear about political destinations enforces a strong form of accountability about the means we need to use to reach them. Last year Professor G.A. Cohen published a series of lectures entitled If you're an egalitarian, how come you're so rich? The question posed to both Marxist revolutionaries and Rawlesian social democrats is: If you hate inequality, because you think it is unjust, how can you accept and retain large amounts of money that embodies that injustice? Presumably most people within the Labour movement share a vision of the good society in which rewards are more in line with contributions. Yet New Labour not only refuses to tax wealth effectively or regulate against corrupt bonus systems, it rarely even expresses concern about the super rich and only then in relation to soft targets like demonstrably incompetent utility bosses.
New Labour's rationale is that extreme wealth must be tolerated because to challenge it would create the impression that Labour is against individual success. For fear of endangering the means of electoral victory, we may not speak of the goal of a just society. But surveys have found that citizens accept inequality based on talent, effort or even luck but that they also believe the ratio of wealth between the poorest and the richest should be of the order of 25 to one. In fact, the ratio between the wealthiest 5,000 people in Britain and the poor is more like 500 to one, and in the case of the super rich it is tens of thousands to one. If such disparities in wealth are not part of the nation's vision of the good society how can the Government justify its silence? No wonder Labour's consorting with billionaire businessmen and overpaid celebrities damages its credibility.
But it is in the conduct of politics itself that the most acute means and ends problem is to be found. The political system of our good society would surely be one characterised by high levels of civic participation, democratic engagement and by ethical political leadership. Yet any politician would rather win on a 20 per cent turnout than lose on one of 80 per cent. Too many politicians appear to think that if achieving personal or political objectives involves means of dubious morality, then so be it. Thus every day we see the actual conduct of politics giving the lie to our progressive aspirations.
The lack of political visions also reflects the division of intellectual labour in our universities, newspapers and think tanks. Not only do political philosophers and practical policy wonks write in different journals to each other, they speak a different language. Thus in the seminar rooms of IPPR, the think tanker is saved the embarrassment of having to explain their values while the ivory tower philosophers can wash their hands of the tiresome question of what actually to do next. Roberto Unger, writing with the American Cornel West, puts it thus: 'It is easy to be a realist when you accept everything. It is easy to be a visionary when you confront nothing. To accept little and confront much and to do so on the basis of an informed vision of piecemeal but cumulative change, is the way and the solution.'
If Labour were to win the next four elections what would Britain look and feel like? What is the New Labour good society, good citizen, good state? These are the questions our politicians should try to answer. In doing so they could breathe new ethical and intellectual life into our political culture. They could remind the dwindling band of those still involved in conventional politics why they bother and maybe even communicate with a younger generation now more likely to vote in Big Brother than a general election. No doubt the politicians who first articulate political visions will risk ridicule and misrepresentation. Some will reveal the paucity of their progressive ambition. But these visions, this practical imagining, are vital if we are ever to be convinced - poised as we are between disengagement and volatility - that politics can be a noble activity.
• Matthew Taylor is director of IPPR, whose Labour Conference Fringe Meeting Series, 'Destination Unknown', is sponsored by The Observer.
