The Politician's Dilemma

The current argument among the leaders of the Labour Party about whether they should back or oppose the Conservative plans on welfare reform poses a fundamental question for a democratic politician. Should you stick to your principles or listen to the electorate?

For readers who do not know the background to this, the Conservatives have just announced plans in their Budget to introduce cuts to several welfare programmes in the UK. The Labour Party is the party that traditionally supports the welfare state and would oppose such cuts which will be hard hitting on many of the poorest people in society.

The acting Labour leader, Harriet Harman, has suggested that Labour should not vote against the new measures and the reason she gives is that Labour has lost the argument over welfare reform - the Conservatives just won the general election.

I have to say that my first reaction to oppose Ms Harman's stance, not so much on the issue itself, but on the rationale given for it. (I am no great fan of the tax credits system and would favour root and branch reform of the entire tax and benefits system to something much simpler, much more efficient and more likely to help those in need - a national basic income - but that's another story.)

If someone, even a politician, believes in something - believes in a set of principles and policies that flow from those principles, why should they change their mind because the electorate did not back their party in the last election? The reasons why Labour lost the 2015 election are many, but I am willing to stick my neck out and say that Tory welfare reform proposals (which were kept deep and dark in the election campaign) is not one of them.

But suppose they were? Does that mean the losing party has to abandon their views and simply adopt what the winning party's platform was?

I didn't notice the SNP giving up on seeking independence after losing the referendum and nor should they. I didn't notice the Tories abandoning conservatism after losing three general elections in a row from 1997 to 2005. I don't think the Labour Party ought to abandon social democracy because of 2010 and 2015 either. Otherwise what is the point of the Labour Party? Just to be a nominal "alternative" to the Conservatives?

The electorate is never wrong they say. That is the nature of democracy. But does that mean a politician's principles should be blown around by whatever direction the electoral wind comes in? I don't think so. The problem with Labour last time was the leader wasn't liked and the party's programme wasn't a clear vision that the people could tap into. Both those problems can be sorted without abandoning Labour principles.