The Legacy of John Smith
Labour's future doesn't have to be built around, or against, Blairism. "A great man and a true friend," said Tony Blair of John Smith at this week's Labour gala dinner. It was 10 years ago that his predecessor spoke at the same occasion, hours before suffering a fatal heart attack.
"A great man and a true friend," said Tony Blair of John Smith at this week's Labour gala dinner. It was 10 years ago that his predecessor spoke at the same occasion, hours before suffering a fatal heart attack. A decade on, Smith's legacy remains controversial. For true believing Blairites, he was a minor footnote in history, who contributed little to Labour's transformation. For others, Smith is still Labour's lost leader. The anniversary of his death will be marked with a service on Smith's beloved Iona, while his supporters ponder what might have been.
This is not just a matter of memory. Where you stand on Smith still defines where you stand in relation to Blair. If you consign Smith to Labour's Old Testament, just another complacent prophet leading nowhere much, you underline the New Labour story of miraculous revival from the day Tony took control. If, however, you see Smith as an emblem of traditional integrity and grounded belief, you can use him to cast doubt on the whole of Labour's New Testament tale. Old or New, party history still counts in Labour.
So the first thing to do is discount the extremes. Those Blairites who argue that under Smith Labour would have squeaked home, or even lost, in 1997, are just being silly. He was a popular figure throughout the country and the Tories were scuppered. Smith would have won, and he would have won big.
But the pro-Smith argument can be easily overdone, too. Because he'd never really been tested at the top of government, his death makes him a little like the poet or rock star who dies young with a tantalising early body of work - easy to romanticise, without the burden of disappointments, false hopes, minor betrayals, feuds fuelled and other everyday penalties of life at Westminster. It's too glib to see him as a man of saintly integrity and socialist certainty, who would never have compromised or let his supporters down. Had he lived and ruled, by now he would have had his string of failures, and would no doubt be being denounced for them on these pages.
Some things would not have been so different. Under Smith, the chancellor would have been Gordon Brown, who would, presumably, still have given the Bank of England independence over monetary policy and have pursued highly cautious, even conservative, spending policies in the early years. Both these things would have appealed to Smith's Presbyterian side. Under Smith, of course, Scottish and Welsh devolution would have gone ahead, with his good friend Donald Dewar leading the charge.
We would still have seen Robin Cook and probably Derry Irvine at the top of the cabinet. Jack Straw, despite his difficult relationship with Smith at times, would have been up there too. Tony Blair would have been home secretary. There would no doubt have been a clique of ultra-modernisers, who would have aroused much suspicion in Downing Street. They would probably have been called "Blairites".
But it is the differences that are really interesting. Smith was a much more traditional Labour figure than Blair, with personal knowledge of the Wilson and Callaghan years, and a strong redistributive streak. He was also a dyed-in-the-wool European and constitutional reformer. His style would have been hugely different - no Cool Britannia under him, I think; and no scampering off to pay homage to Rupert Murdoch. But the substance, as well as the style, of a Smith premiership would have offered contrasts.
My guess is that we would have been paying more income tax by now, probably quite a bit more. Brown's web of tax credits and incentives for low-paid working families and the minimum wage would have gone ahead under Smith, but income tax would have been a more important source of revenue. Labour would have been correspondingly less popular among the southern middle classes, unless Smith had found the magic formula to improve public services in direct proportion to the amount of money being invested in them.
"Choice" would not be the main mantra chanted by ministers when discussing public service reform. Smith would have brought moderate trade union leaders much closer to the centre of power and would have confronted them only with great reluctance. Yet cooperation could have yielded greater benefits than confrontation.
Second, "spin" would be a word used only in launderettes. The Downing Street machine would leak rather obviously against Smith's enemies, but in a traditional way. The government would be criticised for its old-fashioned media relations, and hacks would roll their eyes at yet another hour-long Smith speech, which would not have been hyped up in the Sunday papers two days earlier.
In his regular G2 column, the Guardian's trendiest writer, Peter Mandelson, would be advocating a more exciting, aggressive, creative style of political debate. He would be being ignored. The House of Lords would have gone, replaced by a rather dull elected body full of ex-union bosses and former Tory ministers, known popularly as the House of Lairds.
The really big differences, though, would be in world affairs. Smith was an ardent European, and would most likely have pushed Britain into the euro early on, without a referendum. The Tory party might have split over Europe. We might have seen the emergence of a mainstream nationalist party by now. But for most people, the European issue would be settled.
The consequence of that would be a more distant relationship with Washington. September 11 and the Bush victory would still have happened. The war in Afghanistan would have followed. But try as I might, I simply cannot see Smith standing alongside George Bush over Iraq, or indeed standing alongside Bush at all. He would have loathed the man. As a result, he would have been close to Schröder and Chirac, three sober-looking chaps in suits together, who would have had formidable international clout.
Above all, trust would not be the issue it is today. Smith was a rooted man, sure of what he stood for. True, he had a quick temper and didn't suffer fools. But he was a man of integrity who would not have swung in whichever direction the latest focus group urged him to.
Under Smith, there would have been less spectacular early promise - a sedate, rather than a glitzy arrival in Downing Street, but there would have been less disappointment too. He would have infuriated sections of the press much more than Blair, with his redistributive and pro-European politics, but he may well have succeeded in establishing a more traditional Labour agenda.
And here is why these games in alternative history are still significant. Blair has been so dominant and so, well, Blairite, that it is sometimes hard to imagine an alternative Labour future that isn't either a pallid copy or a fierce and electorally tricky repudiation. But the Smith agenda of Europeanism and social democracy has not disappeared. It remains in the hearts and minds of many Labour politicians. And one day, perhaps, it will be back. And there will be a ghostly chuckle from Iona.
This is not just a matter of memory. Where you stand on Smith still defines where you stand in relation to Blair. If you consign Smith to Labour's Old Testament, just another complacent prophet leading nowhere much, you underline the New Labour story of miraculous revival from the day Tony took control. If, however, you see Smith as an emblem of traditional integrity and grounded belief, you can use him to cast doubt on the whole of Labour's New Testament tale. Old or New, party history still counts in Labour.
So the first thing to do is discount the extremes. Those Blairites who argue that under Smith Labour would have squeaked home, or even lost, in 1997, are just being silly. He was a popular figure throughout the country and the Tories were scuppered. Smith would have won, and he would have won big.
But the pro-Smith argument can be easily overdone, too. Because he'd never really been tested at the top of government, his death makes him a little like the poet or rock star who dies young with a tantalising early body of work - easy to romanticise, without the burden of disappointments, false hopes, minor betrayals, feuds fuelled and other everyday penalties of life at Westminster. It's too glib to see him as a man of saintly integrity and socialist certainty, who would never have compromised or let his supporters down. Had he lived and ruled, by now he would have had his string of failures, and would no doubt be being denounced for them on these pages.
Some things would not have been so different. Under Smith, the chancellor would have been Gordon Brown, who would, presumably, still have given the Bank of England independence over monetary policy and have pursued highly cautious, even conservative, spending policies in the early years. Both these things would have appealed to Smith's Presbyterian side. Under Smith, of course, Scottish and Welsh devolution would have gone ahead, with his good friend Donald Dewar leading the charge.
We would still have seen Robin Cook and probably Derry Irvine at the top of the cabinet. Jack Straw, despite his difficult relationship with Smith at times, would have been up there too. Tony Blair would have been home secretary. There would no doubt have been a clique of ultra-modernisers, who would have aroused much suspicion in Downing Street. They would probably have been called "Blairites".
But it is the differences that are really interesting. Smith was a much more traditional Labour figure than Blair, with personal knowledge of the Wilson and Callaghan years, and a strong redistributive streak. He was also a dyed-in-the-wool European and constitutional reformer. His style would have been hugely different - no Cool Britannia under him, I think; and no scampering off to pay homage to Rupert Murdoch. But the substance, as well as the style, of a Smith premiership would have offered contrasts.
My guess is that we would have been paying more income tax by now, probably quite a bit more. Brown's web of tax credits and incentives for low-paid working families and the minimum wage would have gone ahead under Smith, but income tax would have been a more important source of revenue. Labour would have been correspondingly less popular among the southern middle classes, unless Smith had found the magic formula to improve public services in direct proportion to the amount of money being invested in them.
"Choice" would not be the main mantra chanted by ministers when discussing public service reform. Smith would have brought moderate trade union leaders much closer to the centre of power and would have confronted them only with great reluctance. Yet cooperation could have yielded greater benefits than confrontation.
Second, "spin" would be a word used only in launderettes. The Downing Street machine would leak rather obviously against Smith's enemies, but in a traditional way. The government would be criticised for its old-fashioned media relations, and hacks would roll their eyes at yet another hour-long Smith speech, which would not have been hyped up in the Sunday papers two days earlier.
In his regular G2 column, the Guardian's trendiest writer, Peter Mandelson, would be advocating a more exciting, aggressive, creative style of political debate. He would be being ignored. The House of Lords would have gone, replaced by a rather dull elected body full of ex-union bosses and former Tory ministers, known popularly as the House of Lairds.
The really big differences, though, would be in world affairs. Smith was an ardent European, and would most likely have pushed Britain into the euro early on, without a referendum. The Tory party might have split over Europe. We might have seen the emergence of a mainstream nationalist party by now. But for most people, the European issue would be settled.
The consequence of that would be a more distant relationship with Washington. September 11 and the Bush victory would still have happened. The war in Afghanistan would have followed. But try as I might, I simply cannot see Smith standing alongside George Bush over Iraq, or indeed standing alongside Bush at all. He would have loathed the man. As a result, he would have been close to Schröder and Chirac, three sober-looking chaps in suits together, who would have had formidable international clout.
Above all, trust would not be the issue it is today. Smith was a rooted man, sure of what he stood for. True, he had a quick temper and didn't suffer fools. But he was a man of integrity who would not have swung in whichever direction the latest focus group urged him to.
Under Smith, there would have been less spectacular early promise - a sedate, rather than a glitzy arrival in Downing Street, but there would have been less disappointment too. He would have infuriated sections of the press much more than Blair, with his redistributive and pro-European politics, but he may well have succeeded in establishing a more traditional Labour agenda.
And here is why these games in alternative history are still significant. Blair has been so dominant and so, well, Blairite, that it is sometimes hard to imagine an alternative Labour future that isn't either a pallid copy or a fierce and electorally tricky repudiation. But the Smith agenda of Europeanism and social democracy has not disappeared. It remains in the hearts and minds of many Labour politicians. And one day, perhaps, it will be back. And there will be a ghostly chuckle from Iona.
Use the feedback form below to submit your comments.
Use the form below to email this article to your friends.
