Robin Cook and the future of democratic socialism

We had only recently returned from the Eisteddfod maes to our relatives in Caernarfon when the dreadful news came in about Robin Cook. It was completely shocking. He had played, as others have pointed out, an important role in the 2005 election campaign in making the case for re-electing Labour, no matter what position people had taken on the war.

Gordon Brown spoke for everyone in The Times yesterday:

Robin as I will always remember him — strong in commitment, resolute in his radicalism, committed to the cause of social justice nationally and internationally — and that is why today this great public servant is mourned not just by his family, colleagues and constituents in the UK, but by friends and admirers in every continent.

Closer to home, David Cornock reminds us of his thinking about Britishness when he was Foreign Secretary:

He argued that devolution would strengthen rather than weaken the UK. "The votes for devolution in the referendums were not votes for separation. They were votes to remain in the United Kingdom with a new constitutional settlement. By recognising the United Kingdom's diversity, devolution has guaranteed its future.

"Centuries of living together and working together have created enduring bonds between each of the constituent nations that make up Britain. Our future together in a single state is all the more secure if we each respect the distinctive identity that makes some of us Scottish and others Welsh or English. That mutual respect strengthens our common identity as British."

In yesterday's Independent, the FCO's Director of Communications John Williams remembered his brave commitment over Kosovo:

If it was worth Robin being Foreign Secretary for one thing, it would be the thanks of Kosovan leaders. Let's not forget that war was fought in defence of Muslims. It was, in fact, a triumph of ethical foreign policy, but Robin longed to be free of the phrase.

There had been many rumours that Robin Cook would have been brought back into Government if Gordon Brown were to become Prime Minister. Certainly, it would have been a significant and symbolic statement, enabling a stronger reconciliation of the pro- and anti-Iraq war camps within the Labour Party. Patrick Wintour in today's Guardian suggests that Cook might have played a big role in relation to a future Brown government in respect of the constitutional reform agenda:

Another possibility was that Mr Cook would have been instrumental in developing Mr Brown's new constitutional settlement, working on a new relationship between parliament and the executive.

His death certainly creates a gap, as Wintour notes. Cook's intellectual contribution would have been valuable to this. There is a need for clear thinking about the political direction of the next phase of Labour, and the democratic socialist or social democratic project. At home, an inclusive sense of Britishness, strengthened by further modernising our democracy in Britain, through courageous constitutional reform at UK and Welsh levels, and building on the traditions of community socialism, directly empowering local communities, and greater emphasis on the anti-poverty agenda, which Labour in government has addressed but sometimes seems to be apologising for. Internationally, creating the momentum for a more co-operative foreign policy, for a more effective and responsive European Union, for concerted collective action on global poverty, building on the G8 agreement in respect of Africa, and a more convincing environmental agenda.

There is a political imperative to this. Martin Kettle rightly recognised in March:

a lot that was strong and promising about New Labour derived from its embrace of liberal England. Ever since New Labour broke from liberal English public opinion - principally over Iraq - it has grown weaker. Not until it finds its way back to liberal England will Labour revive and prosper again.

This isn't just about 'liberal England' - progressive opinion in Wales and Scotland has also been divided in its approach to Labour, and we have seen that to a degree in Wales in Cardiff and Swansea. Sometimes that divide has been allowed to grow because the political argument for the important things that the Government has done has not been actively made, or has simply been regarded as secondary to Iraq, as Peter Hain pointed out in March:

Furthermore, the black-and-white rejection of Labour that Iraq has excited seems to me quite disproportionate when, for example, we have more than doubled the aid budget towards the UN target of 0.7% of GDP, and Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are leading the world battle against poverty, through trade justice and dropping the debt, and making climate change and Africa this year's priorities for the G8 most powerful countries.

Similarly, criticism that we have got wrong the balance between liberty and security over suicide terrorism ignores the fact that we brought in the Human Rights Act - now under fierce assault from the right. And criticism about being tough on illegal immigration ignores a whole raft of policy and legislation stopping racial hatred and promoting equal opportunities.

Then there is the long list of our other radical achievements. For example, the minimum wage, which more than doubled hourly rates for hundreds of exploited workers in my south Wales constituency. Or the tax credits that have boosted low-income families and pensioners and ensured that this has been the most redistributive Labour government ever. Or the 2 million extra jobs under Labour, and the transformation this has brought, in contrast to virtu ally any other comparable country where unemployment is now a modern curse.

Or take the doubling of the health and schools budgets, at a time when most other countries, such as Germany and France, have been cutting or holding stagnant their public spending. Or the half-million more public-sector workers, including 78,000 extra teachers and 100,000 extra nurses and doctors. Tariq Ali, writing on these pages at the weekend, argued: "The tribal notion that New Labour is somehow qualitatively better than the Tories is pure sentimentality. It is not supported by the facts."

Well, whether Labour or the Tories win might not materially matter to some who are, like me, better off than average. But it damn well matters to working-class constituents like mine who were destroyed by the Tory assault on the miners 20 years ago, and are only now having new jobs, lower mortgages, new hospitals, new schools and new hope. For them, a Labour government isn't a luxury, it's a lifeline. They need us to win to ensure the minimum wage goes on rising above £5 to end poverty pay.

They need us to continue working to deliver full employment in even the most deprived areas. They need us to embark on the biggest building programme of affordable housing in generations. And they need us to deliver quality childcare for all three- and four-year-olds. All of which we will do.

I don't apologise for repeating that at length, because the points are worth making. The election of a third-term Labour government has of course been an extraordinary achievement. But the challenge for the future is to go beyond existing achievements and build a base for enthusiastic recruitment. We need to rejuvenate our core vote, recapture small-l liberal opinion, and project new ambitions for the future - while continuing to deliver in government, of course. That's not easy, as others have recognised. Cook's role would have been invaluable.