They were elected as New Labour and they governed as New Labour; now they seem to be on their way out as New Labour. Sure, there are still two years before Gordon Brown has to go to the polls, and a lot can happen between now and 2010. But – contrary to the D:Ream lyrics – it is not the case that things can only get better. They can also get much, much worse.
In a period certain to be marked by declining house prices - and quite possible set to witness the first full-on recession since the early 1990s – a Supermac-style reliance on ‘events, dear boy, events’ is likely to see the prime minister’s prospects deteriorate rather than ameliorate.
Meanwhile, Boris Johnson is taking over at City Hall, while David Cameron looks rather more likely than not to secure victory for the Conservatives at the next general election. Message to goodthinkful on-message New Labour androids everywhere: read that sentence again. Slowly.
Reconnection with the concerns of Labour’s traditional base is not just the right thing to do on social democratic principle, but the only means to avoid two or three successive terms of Conservative government.
A simple assertion of the sort of thinking that was once at the core of Labour political philosophy is now the course that coincides with hard-headed survival instinct-driven pragmatism.
It is no use constantly boasting that Britain has the most flexible labour market in Europe if, for millions of voters, that fine phrase translates into low pay and job insecurity. Remind me again, what exactly is wrong with employment rights at the same level enjoyed by employees elsewhere in the EU?
How can a centre-left government be so prejudiced against public ownership that it only realised the need to nationalise Northern Rock long after the Lib Dems had reached the obvious conclusion?
And leaving aside the fate of individual building societies, what is to be done now that it is plain that market mechanisms leave hundreds of thousands of people – perhaps millions of people – unable to find affordable housing? Would large scale construction of good quality local authority housing for rent really be undesirable?
Instead of encouraging figures such as John Hutton to deliver his grotesque ‘enrichissez-vous!’ homiletics to selected audiences, even as the government clobbers this country’s five million poorest taxpayers, why not consider ways of making the tax system more progressive?
Just by rediscovering the ideals that must have motivated many of them to become involved in politics in the first place, Labour MPs now have the opportunity to do good while simultaneously covering their sorry asses. Oi, you over there with the slim majority in a two-way marginal; what’s not to like?
It really is true that we are best when we’re boldest, best when we’re Labour. It’s high time that Gordon Brown realised that that should be an operative philosophy, rather than a contrived climax to a conference peroration.
Posted at 14:15, 6 May 2008
Comments (14)
"‘enrichissez-vous!’"
It would be nice if it was the peasents he was directing that at.
Although I am a Lib Dem and have no sympathies with socialism, I do agree that there should be more council housing. Apart from anything else, it's shockingly expensive having to pay all this housing benefit to private landlords.
In building council houses, we should learn from past mistakes and no longer build large estates. New developments should have a portion of the housing bought by local authorities and housing associations.
Yes, it's a shame that not everyone can be an owner, but it's true.
Social housing is allocated by what is termed "choice based" letting.
This is another bit of euphemistic phrasing, dreamt up by New Labour, to put a gloss on the true horror of what is really taking place.
In reality, CB letting is needs-based - only those with the greatest need get to exercise a choice.
Nothing wrong with that, you might say. Until you begin to realise the consequences of this nifty bit of social engineering.
What it does is distill all the most disadvantaged into single homogenous communities of similar social composition.
Apply the CB filter for ten years and you crystallised a community which has high-levels of crime, poverty, disadvantage, unemployment and piss-poor schools.
Frnkly, Dave, you're mistaking them for someone who gives a damn.
Sue R,
I don't know what you've done to change Britain for the better, but I'll bet it is less than any ministers in the government. Your sour commentary may be consistent but it is empty.
I think (surprise) Dave has got this wrong. Yes, there was an almighty mess on the 10p tax rate, though in general the tax changes made in April are progressive in the sense that the majority of basic rate taxpayers will proprtionally pay less and the majority of higher rate tax payers will be paying a higher proportion (eg by paying more NI).
On housing, yes there is a problem, but actually more people are better housed than in 1997.
On employment generally more people are in work proportionally in the UK than in many of the European countries Dave (presumably) admires. Nothing wrecks the lives of people more than unemployment.
Reformism has worked in that the last ten years have been better for most working people than they could possibly have hoped for with ten years of Tory government. You can argue about whether it has gone far and fast enough, but please don't replay watered down versions of the "death agony of capitalism" and pretend they are an accurate portrayal of Britain.
Reconnection with Labour's base (as opposed to the average Guardian reader) means doing more on crime, delivering better schools, keeping down people's taxes. It probably also means some stuff on immigration that is far from progressive, so be careful what you wish for.
LOTB, define what "delivering better schools" actually means. It's become one of those vapid-sounding NewLab phrases which covers a multitude of sins without actually offering any sort of coherent explanation of what education is actually FOR? Is it so we can be more productive worker-bees than the Chinese? Is it to give children a fully grounded, and socially mixed, preparation for life? Is it about passing exams? Keeping kids away from crime? What? I've never really heard a coherent explanation from a Blairite of what they think education's purpose is, beyond the nonsense double-speak of choice and targets. So flesh it out.
I also see LOTB trotting out the usual nonsense about left-wing policies being solely the preserve of Guardian readers while all working-class folk are devoted admirers of New Labour, especially the "flexible labour market" and shortage of council housing which have delivered such fantastic benefits for (and election results from) the Labour heartlands.
See also the following familiar straw men:
- many of the European countries Dave (presumably) admires
- watered down versions of the "death agony of capitalism"
And also this excellent example of completely avoiding the question: "more people are better housed than in 1997"
B-
Must try harder
I notice that in John Mcdonnells excellent manifesto, while there are some very good common sense proposals there, there is nothing about repealing the draconian Welfare Reform Act: figures from the main disability welfare charities indicate that most IB claimants will be at least 1.85 worse off but some severely disabled claimants may lose up to 7.00 pounds a week, (though I suspect much more), and face an ever more harsh welfare regime.
While Purnell will push through the the Freud Review, (compiled in only twelve weeks!) where private companies and charities will be paid only by results increasing pressure on advisers and ensuring even more pressure and an increasing level of invasiveness in claimant’s lives.
I am aware welfare is not 'sexy' but to challenge the welfare cuts/regime it is surely morally right. I suspect that although there are constant media vilifications campaigns against claimants
when the general public find out genuine disabled people are losing out, they will be appalled and it may become another 'hot issue' like the 10p tax,
if not, welfare reform goes to the heart of the NL/neo-liberal project and the left should make it one!
btw,
there is a fantastic article here
in the N/Statesman on the reforms.
Is Labour abolishing illness?
Alison Ravetz
Published 01 May 2008
* 32 comments
The new rules on incapacity benefit stake everything on a major gamble: that a large proportion of claimants are, in fact, well enough to work
http://www.newstatesman.com/200805010024#reader-comments
07 May 2008 11:06
The problem is that at root Brown has lost all moral and political credibility. This is far too deep to be resolved with a few superficial policy changes. He is the object of universal, well-merited, contempt.
Firstly, look at his false gravitas yesterday. The auld fool thinks he's some kind of paternalistic Christian Socialist stacking up good works. But the repellent nature of his Charitable action was on display at that Conference on global poverty(or whatever name it had, I can't be arsed to Google it)yesterday. He got half the light-fingered, mess-making, exploiting, useless, transnationals of the planet to parade in some gimcrack stunt. The message was that building coca-cola plants (etc) will solve world poverty.
Secondly, no normal human being independent of regular feeds of large sums of wonga or beholden to political patronage has the slightest idea of how Brown is going to remedy his gaffe about the 10 pence tax stuff.
Thirdly, he is due to make yet more enemies today with the annoucement that the Lord ahs spoken to him on drug use and that Blow will be return to being Class Two. A whole campaign has been waged to convince him of this, that Skunk is some terrible strong new form of Cannabis. In reality -I speak, er hum, from experience - it is indeed more powerful than the crap Moroccan brick dominating the market at present. But, and a big but here, it is nowhere near as strong as the stuff we had in the 'seventies, such as Paki Black, Red Leb, Nepalese Temple Balls, Afghan, not to mention Hash oil and Thai sticks.
This change will mean more people getting banged up, and more criminalisation of a wide swathe of the population already persecuted by complusory healthy living banners and bigots. A typical case of Holy Willie puffing himself up and getting his facts wrong all along the line. And losing yet more votes.
I would like it on record that my frequent written malopropoisilismms, typos and feeling that them there those are out to get me, etc, have nothing to do with my adolescent consumption of 14 grams of Hash a day. I have a Medical Certificate (1979) to prove it:
"Andy is a real cool cat with nothin' but chilled out groove mind-lines. Signed. A.Hoffman (Dr) and T.Leary (Dr, Phd)."
"In reality -I speak, er hum, from experience - it is indeed more powerful than the crap Moroccan brick dominating the market at present. But, and a big but here, it is nowhere near as strong as the stuff we had in the 'seventies, such as Paki Black, Red Leb, Nepalese Temple Balls, Afghan, not to mention Hash oil and Thai sticks."
Bull..
Crikey, do people still buy Moroccan: weaker than cigs.
Red leb was crap, the rest were ok.
As all stoners know.
We all grow our own now. and we either don't vote or we take the piss and vote bad.
Talk about throwing out the baby..
At least we'll have riots again soon.
As I dwell among untrodden ways, LOTB, I am regarded in my domestic orbit as an ornament of my sex and age. And, how pray, are you regarded?
Well, I was there in Bournemouth when GB made his "best when we are Labour" speech. At the time I was a little taken in but it WAS five years ago. He's said very little like it since. It was the kind of rhetoric which bamboozled COMPASS and co and a lot of MPs into thinking he would somehow be better than Bliar.
As they all wring their hands in disbelief it's hard not to have a wry smile and remember with utter clarity how the Labour Left tried ( and failed) to explain this inevitable malaise we are in as a result of Brown's "coronation." I suspect historians will ask themselves just how the Labour Party - sorry the PLP - managed to throw away the prospect of a fourth term by anointing an unelectable Leader. In the menatime, the abyss undoubtedly beckons unless something extraordianry happens.
``Well, I was there in Bournemouth when GB made his "best when we are Labour" speech. At the time I was a little taken in but it WAS five years ago. He's said very little like it since.''
Should one be surprised? In any event, where is Nye Bevan---or the moral equivalent thereof---when you really need him?