Avoiding the "soggy middle ground"

“We already know that to recapture the....seats that will make up a Labour majority, we have to become again the party that represents the hopes and aspirations of our traditional supporters. That does not require us to abandon our ideals or reject our socialist philosophy. Indeed, if we are to become again a party of power rather than a party of protest we need to say more, not less, about both our idealism and our ideology. We cannot win as working-class Conservatives or shop-floor Liberals. Nor would we deserve to win if we abandoned our historic duty to evangelize for a more equal society. It is our belief that “socialism is about equality” which distinguishes us from the grim authoritarians of the far left and the social ameliorators of the soggy middle ground. It is that hopeful, generous, confident philosophy around which we have to build popular support.”

(Roy Hattersley, Labour's Choices, Fabian Society 1983)

It's been something that's been gnawing at me for a little while, I suppose - bubbling under subconsciously, a thought vaguely half-formed - but today I read something that brought it together for me. In response to the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s report on Ofgem’s Retail Market Review, John Denham, the Shadow Business Secretary, was quoted in a Labour party press release:

"The Tory-led Government need to rethink their consumer protection policy and put the immediate needs of the hard-pressed consumer first."

And this is all. A Labour Shadow Minister proposing nothing more than a bit of consumer legislation and the retention of a watchdog body in the face of rising prices, profiteering energy companies and a Government who appear to see little problem in millions being pushed into fuel poverty. Any chance of seeing a manifesto commitment to nationalise the utilities, John - you know, put them under control as an instrument of national policy in a time of increasing energy insecurity and stop the vulnerable being price-gouged?

Sadly, it's little surprise. Just like the vague "response" to the financial collapse of Southern Cross (lots of hand-wringing, a few unspecified promises to do right by our nation's elderly but little else) or the refusal of Ed Miliband to support the recent public-sector strikes or to attend this year's Durham Miners' Gala (his suggestion of not wishing to "share a platform with someone who is not a Labour supporter and who has attacked Labour many times in the past" would be less laughable had he not many times exhorted disillusioned members of other parties to "work with us in areas of common interest"), this doesn't seem so much Opposition as resigned acquiescence - and it's a worryingly recurrent theme, in the face of a Government which seems determined to repeal the sort of legislation and deny citizens the sort of rights which the Parliamentary Labour Party - and we, as Labour Party members - should be fighting with bloodied knuckles to defend.

Where's the imaginative, bold response? I supported Andy Burnham in last year's Labour leadership election in the main because he proposed a number of thoughtful policies (such as a National Care Service - might have been a useful policy proposal in the aftermath of the Southern Cross failure, that...) and genuinely looked to me like he might be able to win the battle of ideas against the Tories and Libs, and offer a positive, worthwhile direction for the Labour Party in the post-Blair/Brown era. Disappointingly, nothing I've seen from the current incumbent has convinced me that there's anything like the same sort of drive, imagination or strong leadership at the top of the party currently - and this, in the face of the kind of proposals the Con-Lib coalition are making, isn't enough.

As Roy Hattersley pointed out, almost thirty years ago now, we in the Labour Party need to be proud instead of apologetic, to believe instead of fear - and certainly, to remain as hopeful, generous and confident as we  know we truly are. Most of all, though, there's the need to stay true to what's right - to represent our supporters and the people of Britain, to lead the fight for a better, fairer society, to avoid toeing the Daily Mail's line and to keep away from what Hattersley so rightly termed the "soggy middle ground".

The potential alternative - a divided, demoralised Labour Party whose support-base has fatally atrophied, stands for little of any substance and is in no state to fight and win against the Tories at the next election - is really not an option, is it?