Dave Semple :
As for the “new partnership between active citizens and active state” that seems – in light of the actual results and policies of Labour – to be just a nicer worded way of advocating Tory government 2.0 speak.

What, you mean Cameron’s “post-bureaucratic age” meme? Yes, it could be that.

But in light of the revival of industrial policy – albeit borne of necessity – and bailout demands from manufacturing capital (the Corus boss, despite being about to close a plant in Redcar, is begging for government subsidies) it seems like there’s space to contest this territory for socialist policies to benefit working people.

The reason why I mentioned the debates in the Americas is because precisely this relationship is taking place in some countries – workers’ self-activity in the form of cooperatives, etc., being either tolerated or facilitated by those in and against the capitalist state.

“The choice facing the British people at the coming election will be as stark as 1945 and 1997. It will be a battle over who is best placed to give people greater control over their lives – and whether the post-recession future is one where we grow together rather than apart.

“Cutting back indiscriminately is not the answer. In a fast-paced world, people want to be anchored with real choices over their housing, their schools and hospitals, their local services, and their democracy – instead of being cut adrift. They know that a new partnership between citizen and state is the way of the future, rather than sink or swim.” [http://www.labourspace.com/thechoice]

There is the potential to reassess existing policies in the light of stated goals, within the terms of this discourse.

One phrase used in the document reminded me of ongoing debates in the Americas about enhancing popular sovereignty over that of either capital or the state:

“At the centre of our strategy is the idea of a new partnership between active citizens and the active state based on a modern ethic of mutual responsibility and fairness. We are going beyond an old-style paternalistic ethos to create an
empowering state, working with people to meet their aspirations for fairness, prosperity and security.”

Note the “aspirations for fairness” bit

I agree that in order to win this time Labour needs only to pick up on the Tories’ key weakness – its very real and its very ‘saleable’ tag as the party of the rich few. My point though is that we should aspire to more than simply beating the Tories by exploiting their weakness, and that we can only do that by redefining our core constituency and them working through the grassroots of the party to form a new ‘class coalition’.

Sorry, you’ve lost me with Will Straw. Are we talking about same article? I’m referring to his Faban piece. Not trying to avoid issue here – just looking for clarity before I respond.

As regards the definition of ‘class war’, I agree (and say in the OP that the term has been wholly appropriated and given wholly negative connotations by the right. It is not, though, a term the left needs. (Again, i’m not sure I’ve got your point here, but I am a bit slow on the uptake sometimes.)

Though Will Straw isn’t explicit in where the core vote is located, it seems to me that it depends upon policies more than anything – substance over style. And the concerns about “class war” seem to be focused on the Cameron definition of Brown’s jibe. The point was actually a good one about priorities…