Politicians used to try and sell us dreams of a better future, but now they just promise to protect us from nightmares - or so said the plug for a recent BBC documentary series. The programme in question, which claimed that the American neo-conservatives had more or less invented the threat of al Qaida for political purposes, was tendentious to say the least. But what is undeniable is that what has been termed "the politics of fear" is assuming an increasingly important role in British public life. This week's Queen's Speech package, which was dominated by crime and security measures, demonstrated that this, rather than public service reform, has now become the real political battleground ahead of the next election. We have already seen in America how the terrorist threat can be successfully utilised for electoral gain. In the presidential election earlier this month, President Bush argued that a John Kerry presidency would make America more vulnerable to terrorist attack - and the country believed him. Now New Labour is trying the same trick, with Leader of the Commons Peter Hain claiming on Tuesday that the country is safer under a Labour Government. The claim was ridiculed as "silly" by former Prime Minister John Major - but the fact that such arguments are even taking place at all is a sign of how far the centre of gravity of British politics has shifted. Now the first thing to say about all this is that there is actually nothing new about what might be defined as the "politics of fear" in the broadest sense. While the current terrorist threat is something that specifically dates back to September 11, 2001, playing on voters' fears of what might happen if the other side gets in is as old as politics itself. Slogans like "Life's better with the Conservatives - don't let Labour ruin it" show there is almost always an element of better-the-devil-you-know in any governing party's pitch to the electorate. Labour lost two elections in the 1950s, and another three in the 1980s and 1990s, largely because Conservative governments succeeded in scaring voters about the impact of their policies. But what is different about today's situation is the way in which it is Labour, rather than the Conservatives, which is seeking to appropriate the defence of national security mantle. Those three election losses in the 80s and 90s came about at least in part because Labour, and specifically Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock, were not sufficiently trusted with the nation's defences. The way in which the Government sought to defend its approach to security issues this week shows that the memories of that era continue to burn deep in the New Labour psyche. As one leading Blairite said in the aftermath of the Queen's Speech: "If Labour did not do the politics of fear, it would have the politics of fear done to it." But while acknowledging the truth of this, the worry among Labour supporters is that such tactical considerations have been elevated to a point where nothing else any longer matters. The main criticism of this week's Queen's Speech is not so much that measures such as the introduction of compulsory ID cards or the creation of a British FBI are wrong in themselves. No, it is in the almost total absence of any corresponding measures designed to highlight the social justice agenda with which Labour has been historically associated. If this Queen's Speech is indicative of what Labour's third term agenda will be like, then the party really will have ceased to be a party of the progressive centre-left in all but name. Where, for instance, was there anything in Tuesday's package to address the pensions crisis, which has left millions of people facing the prospect of financial insecurity in retirement? What measures did it contain to improve our crumbling public transport network, other than a Transport Bill that may make it easier for train companies to close stations and axe lines? What, in the light of its continued backing for the £10bn London Crossrail project, did the Government have to say about regional economic disparities, now that elected assemblies are off the agenda? And while on the subject of justice, social or otherwise, where in the whole panoply of crime and disorder measures was a Bill to ensure proper sentences for drunk drivers who kill? One explanation that has been advanced for the rise of the politics of fear is that it is essentially a manifestation of post modernism and the collapse of traditional political belief systems. According to this analysis, it is pointless promising things like better pensions, improved public transport, or an end to regional inequalities, because no-one would believe you. But if that is indeed the case, it's probably because this Government has promised all those things without actually putting in place the means to deliver them. And if a Prime Minister who once epitomised the politics of hope now finds that the politics of fear is his only recourse to the electorate, then he has only himself to blame. In conclusion, then, this Queen's Speech may very well be a clever means of outflanking the Tories and denying them room for political manoeuvre in the election run-up. But it is assuredly not the package to convince those millions of traditional Labour supporters who stayed at home last time round to leave the comfort of their armchairs. One commentator writing about the Queen's Speech this week posed the question: "A tactical triumph - but where's the big idea?" That is, increasingly, beginning to look like it might become a suitable epitaph not just for this Queen's Speech, but for Mr Blair's entire political career. | 
