Gerry Hassan; Outmoded political standpoints have failed us

This happens to some of us. Others remain stuck – repeating themselves, showing the same degree of intolerance, making strident points and never listening to others.

A moment, or set of moments, recently took place when I realised I was beginning to change. These occurred over the course of the election and its aftermath, and made me begin to acknowledge even more the limitations of the political tribes which define so much of our public life.

An example of this was BBC TV's post-election Question Time, the first since the Con-Lib Dem deal. Appearing on it were Tory Lord Heseltine, Lib Dem Simon Hughes and Labour Lord Falconer, along with "independent" perspectives from Mehdi Hassan (no relation) of the New Statesman and Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail.

Hassan and Phillips saw the coalition as the ultimate betrayal, the former berating the Lib Dems for their sell-out of "the Left" and liberal principles, while Phillips saw the agreement as representing the end of the Conservative Party as we had known it.

What was as interesting as what they said was their tone – hectoring, lecturing, bullying, filled with certainty and self-righteousness. Hassan felt he had permission to interrupt and be rather rude to Heseltine, who was being reasonable and moderate.

This was a display of the politics of the unreflective Left and Right at its worst, showing the tribalism, inflexibility and the narrow bandwidth of what they both regard as acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

A certain left-wing view of the world gained credence during the New Labour era, which emphasised its lack of interest in inequality, the fawning of corporate excess, along with acquiescence to Murdoch and George W Bush. It looked at what New Labour had become and found it, rightly in many respects, repulsive.

Yet, what does such a perspective propose politically in response? Very little it turns out, beyond talking about the importance of public spending, the role of the state, and trade union and workers' rights.

It is a curiously old-fashioned, backward agenda, which shows why New Labour arose, and one which has little to say about some of the big issues we face, such as liberty and the database state, and the environment.

Some left-wingers have assumed the vanquishing of New Labour means the party can return to its values pre-Blair/Brown, forgetting that the party then had trouble winning elections, and wasn't very comfortable with pluralism, decentralism and democracy.

There is an equally powerful certainty in parts of the Right, seen in Phillips and Lord Tebbit, which bemoans the moderation of the Cameron-led Conservatives and its coalition. There is a zealous right-wing mentality which sees threats and enemies everywhere, from immigration to Islam and Europe.

The election also saw the articulation of an unattractive, not very subtle version of Scottish nationalism, not just in the SNP, but wider society. The SNP election campaign was the worst I can remember, with its theme of "give us more money or else".

After the vote, Salmond tried to force himself centre-stage and overplayed SNP influence, while by day two of the Con-Lib Dem government, SNP politicians and others were crying foul. Up went the cry of "no mandate" about the Tories and the return of the bogeyman, without anyone bothering to explain what exactly the corollary was: what was there a specific Scottish mandate for?

The forces of Left, Right and Scottish nationalism at their best have contributed to the civic worth and richness of our society, but at their worst, and as they have declined in numbers, have become self-absorbed, unrepresentative political tribes who have not yet adapted to their minority status.

In particular, Left and Right no longer offer a comprehensive account of the entire world in the way they used to. They are both partial, incomplete explanations of the human condition, and not fully up to the huge challenges we face of global humanity and the fragility of the planet.

It is not surprising in Britain that some have begun to see both Left and Right as part of the problem, with their blindness to the concentrations of power, the Left of "the big state", and the Right of corporate power. Both have fallen prey to forms of liberalism, the Left of the social liberalism of the 1960s, and the Right of the economic liberalism of the 1980s. Blair's New Labour tried to combine both in a very illiberal "big tent".

What our political tribes miss is the sense of humility, contingency and complexity which characterises much of modern life. It is true New Labour committed many errors, yet at the same time, we need to have a nuanced discussion about its record. Were New Labour's successes in reducing poverty the best we can do as a society? And how fundamental are these shifts as public spending cuts loom large?

Then there is how we do our politics, Left, Right and Scots nationalists. They have all fallen under the spell of "the politics of modernisation," a notion of change, organisation, thinking about public services and policy, which is technocratic, top-down, controlling, and ultimately, informed by a pessimism about the ability of people to shape their own lives.

"Modernisation" has proven to be a disastrous world view, which leads to consultants and corporates earning big bucks from the public purse, while leaving the rest of us poorer and feeling powerless.

This world view has proven to be the mantra of our political classes, from Blair and Cameron to Salmond, and one which our tribes have adopted without losing any of their intolerance and over-confidence. It is partly the certainties of Left and Right and their philosophical bankruptcy which have allowed such a set of values to become so dominant in recent decades.

The emergence of the Con-Lib Dem government may work and it may not, but it does provide an opportunity to escape not just the "old politics", but the old meanings and tribes as well.