Sir Menzies Campbell, the LibDem front-runner, anounced yesterday that he rejected an alliance with either Labour or the Tories at the next election and committed himself to taking the party firmly to the Left of Labour and ridiculed the Tories for pushing a liberal agenda, remarking "I have worked with Liberals and David Cameron is not a Liberal". If Campbell manages to secure the leadership he will usher in a new phase of LibDem history as the radical alternative to the parties of the right, New Labour and the Conservatives. As an Old Leftie I have long hoped that Labour would recover its Left-wing roots, chuck Blairism and the Free-Market ethos and resemble something a little more like Democratic Socialism. Alas, Labour seems to be moving further to Right
Tony Blair has now lost the will to hide his true political allegiance, in his latter days as prime-minister. He is now on the side which we have suspected he was on all along; the side of free-market Thatcherism. He openly affirms the privatisation of the public services as did Mrs Thatcher, the de-centralisation of education and welfare systems in favour of private and voluntary sector funding. A self-professed Christian Socialist, Tony Blair is now hammering the final nails in the coffin of the post-war progressive consensus of state protection for all. This pernicious destruction of public services is being done in a slow and painful manner. Private providers and internal markets are being steadily introduced into the NHS, in affect selling the NHS off piece by piece. New Labour’s relish for Public Private Partnerships (PPP) has given corporations the power to run public sector projects and services including transport and the criminal justice system. Competition is the basis of Blair’s reforming of the public services. Profit, not social assistance is their ultimate aim. As the Socialist Jean Shaoul writes, “Blair’s policies are aimed at turning public services over entirely to the free market and in so doing ending all attempts to lessen the social inequality and hardship created by the profit system and removing all restrictions on wealth accumulation”. Nothing could be more anathema to Labour’s historic pledge of universal and equal state service provision.
When Clement Atlee’s government came to power in 1945, Labour was committed to offering all members of society equal access to basic social necessities, to work towards the goal of social equality, using the state as a vehicle. Atlee, who saw the horror of the slums of East London, was determined that Britain would protect its economic security from the malevolent influence of rampant free-markets and in doing so protect each member of society from poverty and depression. This was Labour’s rational behind its radical programme of nationalisation of British industry whereby the essential resources of the nation where channelled towards the material well-being of the nation itself. Competition was to be managed and controlled in order that social prosperity could be shared fairly among the British people. As Roy Hamersley puts it, “the Labour Party was created to change society in such a way that there is no poverty and deprivation from which to escape”. This principle is clearly manifested in the 1945 manifesto and has provided a shining benchmark for British Democratic Socialists ever since. Yet, as we are constantly reminded in New Labour press-conferences, the world has moved on since 1945 and Labour must find new values to make sense of the modern world. Thus Clause 4 of the Old Labour constitution was the first casualty of this battle for a modern Labour Party, viewed by the New Labour jet-set as nothing more than an outdated Marxist relic. By rejecting clause 4 Labour discarded not only the party’s historic commitment to social protection in terms of nationalisation it also rejected its own soul. In a rather telling conference speech at the TUC in 2005 Tony Blair clearly expressed this hollow mentality, he remarked:
“What we must not do is fall for some modern version of the old left delusion: that the problem with a progressive Government is that is isn’t left enough and if only its leadership rediscovered its true principles, all would be well. We know where that leads: to a right-wing Conservative Government. Always has done; always will”.
We know where this New Labour mindset leads the party, further and further into the camp of the Tories and further and further from a progressive kind of government. It should worry every Labour voter and activists that Tony Blair and David Cameron are in board agreement on the education of our children, that a party once so concerned about equality is riddled with the notion that free-market is best and protectionism is the stuff of “loony lefties” like me. It should concern those who support the Labour Movement that the party has largely severed its old ties with the trade-unions and presided over a country that has seen rising rates of economic inequality between rich and poor and a declining manufacturing sector. It should alarm Labour supporters that at the current rate of factory closure and land-sell off, Britain’s manufacturing and agricultural industries, will be extinct within a generation, leaving thousands condemned to long term unemployment.
What is the answer? It seems that Labour is unlikely to recover its Left-wing credentials in the near future, so perhaps the last hope for the Left are the LibDems under the leadership of Sir Ming. He is a social Liberal of the old kind and belives strongly in the Radical Liberal tradition of a state-funded welfare state and a progressive aproach to the environment and social justice. If the LibDems moved to the right under Mr Hughes it would be a travesty and give me a shudder. It is clear that Sir Ming is not a Socialist, but one thing is certain he is not a Blairite, nor part of the Neo-Liberal free-market gang and will not lay down without a fight. Its Social Liberalism, not Socialism but its better than nothing. I hope in the coming months that the Liberals will recover their tradition of social justice personified in such figures from the past as William Beveridge and Lloyd George and work for the kind of fair society we all want to see.
Interesting essay, Ben, I think that the internal struggle inside the party is going to be much more of a landmark than many may believe. The Liberal Democrats are a party that, let's face it, don't have a phenomenal chance of gaining power, and recent successes can be put more down to failure of mainstream politics in gauging public reactions. Having said that, they do act as a very good benchmark against which to judge the other two parties, and allows definition of the left and right in politics to become clearer, especially as in many respects they seem to be blurring into each other. Charles Kennedy was the best choice of leader for me, and I'm saddened that he didn't choose to enter the race and challenge his detractors openly. I have to confess that I don't know much about Sir Menzies, except that his chances of winning the leadership have been greatly reduced after his showing in the Commons. The concept of Simon Hughes winning the election sends an electric shock down me, how he can justify himself as being Liberal or Social Democrat astounds me. I think that whatever happens, the next few weeks will be pivotal for the politics of the country for some years to come, especially, as Ben has pointed out, what the reaction will be to the PPP and PFIs, of which I am a strong critic, having read about too many disaster stories in their construction, management and upkeep. On a lighter note, perhaps Sir Menzies should wear a 'Ming the Merciless' outfit to the Commons. Every party needs a comical mascot to lighten affairs. The Tories had Count Howard and Labour have John Prescott. Steven. xxx
__________________
CRAP? WHAT D'YA MEAN IT'S CRAP? THERES EIGHT BODIES AT THE END AND HE GETS TO SHAG HIS MUM!!
I can assure you that as a member of Labour Students, Labour is the only Party of the Left in mainstream politics.
The LibDems will promise you whatever you like to try and get into power. They can see how upset people are that Labour has moved to the right so they use this by claiming to be a leftist party.
I assure you that a Liberal Democrat Government would be just as devoted to Free-Market economics and privitisation as the Tories or Labour. They are not and never have been a socialist party. If the LibDems try and turn to the left they have plenty of right wing backbenchers who will stop it whereas in the Labour party we still have the Fabian Society and the Socialist Campaign group and plenty of socialist backbenchers. If any party is going to take on a Democratic Socialist attitude it will be Labour.
Might I also remind you that even though Blair has drifted the party to the right he has still introduced plenty of progressive social policies especially for us gays.
Please don't be taken in by the flip-flopping LibDems who will you promise you the world if it means they get elected.
I kinda agree with that. Knowing bugger about politics really, it does seem that the Lib Dems are happy to make some rather idealistic claims when it comes to the election, knowing full well as they do that they will never find themselves in power, and whilst they might get an increased proportion of the vote because of their politices, they will never have to implement any of their ideas, so can get away with it.
Surely after the stirring performance on on Celebrity Big Brother, the voting public will be unable to resist the charms of the Respect party at the next election?
__________________
I reserve... I reserve... I have a reservation... I HAVE a reservation.. What do you mean its not in the computer?
Adam wrote: Surely after the stirring performance on on Celebrity Big Brother, the voting public will be unable to resist the charms of the Respect party at the next election?
Damn right.
Nothing gets my vote like knowing that instead of voting on a Crossrail bill that's integral to his constitutency, good old George Galloway is writhing around on national TV pretending to be a cat. Miaow!
I must say that I find nothing "left-wing" about a New Labour government that has treated the trade-unions in a terrible fashion, viewing their contribution as irrelevent. I find nothing very Left-wing about a party which has foresaken its committment to nationalisation of all essenital industries in the forrm of Clause 4. I find nothing Socialist about a party that is selling off our public services, our schools and hospitals to private providers. The party is funded more by the donations of millionaires rather than the Unions. Labour ceased to be Socialist, when as you pointed out they moved to the right and severed with its past. I was considering joining the Leeds Labour Students, but as long as the party is New Labour i'm afriad you'll have to count me out.
Mr JesusBitch, I think your polemic is interesting but ultimately distorts the New Labour position with a lot of conjecture and opinion. As much as I am wary of Tony Blair, I can never build up the same level of aggression towards him that many appear to have. I think Blair would say that they're not 'turning over public services' to corporations, but attempting to use agility and skills developed in the commercial spere to produce better value for the UK's citizens. I think your assessment of the manufacturing and agricultural sectors of the economy is alarmist and false. We can't blame Blair for the effects of Globalisation. Everyone in every country around the world is having to adjust to new style of economics that means we have a 'knowledge' economy in the UK with manufacturing largely being done in developing nations. I don't think it's better to have the party at the beck and call of trade unions that foist undemocratic and opportunistic deals onto the public in the name of the poor workers. At least with millionaires you don't have to sign long-term contracts and give in to their over the top demands. It's much easier to see the ill in one person than a whole organisation of partisan voters.
I say this as a Liberal Democrat voter, with huge appreciation for public sector services, but a realisation that it's not possible to continue living life as though we're in the 1950s. Computer are in, coal mining is out. Perhaps Blair's version of Britain is more fair for all of us rather than just those who used to have a grip on power. There are some things in New Labours actions that annoy me; PFI's and PPP are one good example, but the idea behind them isn't the worst ever. I just think it's more important to get involved and improve the system than to moan about it from the sidelines. Vote with your feet!
I am of course not suggesting we behave as though it is the 1950s, I realise the world has changed but I think that this fact is often used as a way to justify the new Neo-Liberal consensus that has eaten into our politics. As a Socialist I would say that Tony Blair's attitude and the attitude of most politicians is that globalisation is some kind of unstoppable force of nature and that we must embrace it. But Globalisation is unjust and is another word for exploitation and this is based on the way we structure our economy. If let the economy and the mechanisms of the economy control us rather than elected democratic bodies that is a choice. The free-market model is not a neccessary entity. The new world order and the market are used fo justify unregulated Capitalism and social inequality, not very Labour is it? The free-market is a human construction, not a god to be worshipped ,things can be changed.
The thing is I believe our public services ARE being privitised as much as Blair denies it. The dumping of Clause 4 is a symptom of that. Call me alarmist if you like, but your position on public services and Globalisation is typically liberal in the sense that is characteristically timid. As a farmer's grandson I know from first hand experience the terrible state of British agriculture, I know how my family is finding it difficult to make money out of the farm, how they seem to work every hour God sends for no reward. This year we are only farming 40% of the land because we are loosing so much money. In this free-market Globalised world there is no room for us, but of course Tony Blair says its just inevitable- embrace change- exploiting farmers in other countries for the sake of cheap food in serplus. On your point about trade unions I THINK I'd rather have trade-unionism looking after the interests of workers rather than a society where the whims of big bussiness walk over people without protest.
I understand what you mean, and in a funny way agree with it. I think in the end, all problems like this are concerned with the degree to which we are alarmed by what we see and how we wish to approach these problems and who 'we' feel we can trust. I think people like Tony Blair have a difficult situation to balance because they have a duty to fiscal responsibility coupled with a requirement and yes, a duty, to our national heritage.
On your note of farms and so forth, I completely agree that it's a shambles and an outrage that agricultural knowledge and history is being lost but I direct my anger more at anti-competitive moves like the CAP and major supermarkets than I do to the government. In time I hope growth in understanding with regards to diet and our food in general (witness the 6g of salt per day campaign) will make the UK's farming sustainable once more. With organics and traditional farming techniques there is great opportunity for specialist and quality farming rather than the mass-market apparently picture perfect food we have today. But see, I prefer to hate Asda, Tesco and Sainsbury than Brown and Blair.
Oh, and I certainly didn't mean to call you alarmist, if I did, I apologise!
Thanks for clarifying your thoughts Patrick, I didn't mean to sound so annoyed, the whole Globalisation thing touches a nerve with me because it is something personal, not just theoretical. ChersBitch you are quite right that Trade-Unions do not represent the whole of Left-Wing ideology, but I believe that a vibrant trade-union movement is essenital for Labour. It is from trade-unionism that early British socialism grew and we must not let the historic tie between Labour and the trade-unions to die because then I think Labour would loose a layer of grass-roots representation which I believe is vital. Yes, the trade unionism of the late 70s became sectarian, but I think it is a shame that Trade-Unionists are stil paying for these mistakes. Of course there is more to being a Labourist. For me one vital ingrediant of the left that has been lost due to "New Labour Modernisation" was the old Clause 4 in the Labour constitution which stated:
"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service".
The Old Clause represented the aspirations of a whole movement in society, the new clause 4 was written by Blair on a Sunday afternoon and has pretty words but no ideological substance. When you look at the new clause it doesn't actually say much at all. New Labour is vacuous and is great at using inclusive jargon but don't seem to stand for anything unique. If Labour are to put some water between themselves and the Tories, the commitment to nationalism must again become part of Labour's Social programne or else Labour will be portraying their left-wing roots. Labour needs to get back to its original values and stop the wishy washy New Labour experiment. As the Gurdian collumist Polly Toynbee argues 'a cabal of 1980s warriors prevents the party from talking about its values': values such as public not private, opportunity not privilege, and putting the family before business".
