With Labour's share of the national vote yesterday down to a level that makes 1983 look like the good old days, one of the key justifications for delabourisation suddenly looks somewhat less tenable. To revamp the slogan that must have paid for much of Charles Saatchi's art collection, New Labour isn't working.
Blair, Brown and Mandelson always sold their Trinny and Susannah makeover on the basis of electoral success. Plenty of people with enough political understanding to know better insisted that democratic socialism - or even any of form of half-hearted lingering sentimental attachment to bog standard watered-down social democracy - had to be extirpated to propitiate Middle England.
For ye have the poor always with you, and everyone knows that the poor always vote Labour, whatever happens. They are too thick to think rationally about politics, anyway. The Old Fettesians were absolutely confident of that..
And Blairism did win elections, of course. There is no denying that. However, even a decade or more of seeming success is an insufficient basis on which to judge a political project. Given Blair's reported fixation with the notion of 'legacy', the real yardstick can only be the long-term outcome.
The history of the Liberal Party shows us that. After its landslide general election victory of 1906, it must have seemed unassailable; since 1916, it has never been anything more than a sporadic coalition partner. The process took just 10 years.
The paradox of Blairism is that, despite three successive majority Labour governments, the base of the party is utterly emaciated. A degree of community entrenchment that took generations to build has been eviscerated.
Many activists are motivated primarily by career considerations. Today's cadre are full-time councillors, parliamentary researchers and trade union officials, augmented by fresh-faced barristers and disconcertingly eager young PR women with irritating high-pitched giggles and a firm eye on a safe constituency in a former mining area. Looming electoral defeat is not likely to enhance their commitment.
Labour's collapse has been political, too. The James Purnell Tendency even argues that Labour has now become 'ideologically neutral', as if there could be some sort of no non-aligned movement in a society riven by ever greater inequality.
The result has been disastrous policies such as the abolition of the 10p tax band, a proposal that would once have been regarded as so morally repugnant to a party of labour that it would not even merit consideration.
One MP I campaigned with yesterday suspects that Charles Clarke will formally launch a stalking horse leadership bid this weekend, if Ken Livingstone is ousted as mayor of London. That is certainly looking possible. But Blairism without Blair, in a markedly less photogenic package to boot, is hardly the solution to Labour's problems right now.
Posted at 09:08, 2 May 2008
Comments (22)
I agree very much with your line "The paradox of Blairism is that, despite three successive majority Labour governments, the base of the party is utterly emaciated." I was helping with the knocking up yesterday, and it was evident that very little canvassing has been done recently. Some of the people we were contacting were people we'd last had contact with as Labour supporters as far back as 1997. Blair did win elections but even then the actual numbers turning out was getting lower and lower. I'm reminded of what I think was Harold Wilson's phrase "Labour is a moral crusade or is it nothing"
"disconcertingly eager young PR women with irritating high-pitched giggles"
Eh ?
Labour has been "ideologically neutral" since it abolished clause 4.
I think that you could explain part of this phenomena by the insularity of New Labour, having achieved three major electoral wins they seem to think that they could walk on water, being more concerned with their petty careers and implementing a watered-down Tory lite agenda than anything remotely socially progressive
I think a lot of voters thought "Tories, New Labour, Tories, what's the difference?"
politically Brown made a big mistake about the 10p tax band, that pissed a lot of people off, add to it the hope that some people had (naive, nevertheless a hope) that Brown was more old Labour than vacuous Tony Blair and might implement some policies aimed at the working-class, but of course as Blair's co-architect he couldn't, and the bubble which surrounds Brown and New Labour means that they couldn't see these problems until it is shoved up their very noses
their own hubris and political laziness are partly to blame for their own defeat
People have started voting Tory again, so therefore Labour must move to the left?
The LP had indeed lost its moral compass, exemplified by the the odious James Purnell, the uber blairite/tory DWP Secretary has just been interviewed on Channel 4 news, he was completely out of his depth, mucking up his responses and just repeated saying it is all the fault of the global economy. He, like other schoolboy/girl Blairites was clearly over promoted and now times are tougher are being exposed, he should have stayed as the policy wonk he was.
Bizarrely he is to announce even more draconian welfare reform is next month, yet figures from the main disability welfare charities indicate that most IB claimants will be 1.85 worse off but some severely disabled claimants may lose up to 7.00 pounds a week, maybe more, and an ever more harsh welfare regime. These cuts are much more than the 10p tax allowance abolition, so will there be an outcry over this? Not only that but disabled student on Ib will no longer be able to study at university, cruel or what?,
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/content/view/917/92/
Looks like the rats are already leaving the sinking ship. That every so clever chappie from the city that Gordon Brown had lined up to be the next Party General Secretary has announced he will not be taking up the post. Apparently he is worried about his personal liability as he has a fortune of £20,000,000. (This was on Channel4 News)
Is this the same Sue R as the one at Harry's Place who abstained in the mayoral election and whose husband voted for Boris?
I agree entirely with the post - i was going to post something similar earlier today after watching John Denham trying to convince himself (and us) that the south will rise again for New Labourand the glory of the project.
there are no rapidly becoming no heartlands left to retreat to - scotland/wales etc labour having lost overall control of both assemblies. And then the council results. pah.
New Labour has always been too right wing - in UK terms it is a right wing party. There are Tory Mp's to the social left of several prominent new-labourite front benchers.
Labour can not go any further to the right - it can tack back and still not resemble anything like a leftist party by debarking to the middle ground on asylum/drugs/welfare/private finance/taxes and on and on.
But - if labour moved back to the centre from the right ground they would be slap bang in Lib Dem territory - but even the Lierals Marching rightwards will still not overtake New Labour.
harumph.
"the base of the party is utterly emaciated"
Unfortunately, very true.
I grew up (& still live in) a solid Labour (Westminster) constituency. I don't remember ever being canvassed by anyone from the Labour Party.
At the last set of Holyrood elections we got doorstepped by everyone but Labour - if the base can't be motivated to canvas floating voters in a tight election then what hope does the party have in one which a portion of the party is expecting to lose?
I'm not a party member but I do think that this country (any country really) needs a vibrant & effective party of the Left.
Yes, Matthew Stiles, 'tis I, the very same. I said before on this site that I could not vote for Livingstone, and that I was considering voting for the CPB (whom I read was standing candidates in every seat) but I actually decided to be really ultra-leftist and write 'World Socialism' on my ballot paper. I think Ken Livingstone lost by moe than one vote. So, don't blame me.
As for my husband's voting, am I my husband's keeper?
If it is the same 'Sue R' (note the ''s), and her husband did indeed vote for Boris this is sad news indeed, given his past.
Well not so much sad as laughable.
For those that are interested PRs take is here;
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=2075
"everyone knows that the poor always vote Labour, whatever happens. They are too thick to think rationally about politics, anyway. The Old Fettesians were absolutely confident of that.."
It's worse than that for Labour. Ever since Essex Man voted Thatcher they've not trusted the skilled working class - indeed I've heard it argued that mass immigration was Labour's revenge on the working class traitors for Thatcher. But immigrants would always constitute a core vote. After all, who else could they vote for ? That thesis got knocked on the head by Galloway a couple of years back.
I agree with the general point though - that the tribal, manual working class Labour vote is breaking up. Lab's core voters today are social workers, aren't they ?
Still, since the 80s Labour strategists have cordially detested the Bristish working class. We're starting at last to see that contempt returned.
Andrew flatters me and my family. As if we were of any consequence within the Labour movement. Yes, my husband was a Labour councillor, but that was SIXTEEN years ago now. Andrew has far more influence in the Labour movement than me or mine, through the platform of the Ipswich Trades Council.
>a safe constituency in a former mining area
For how long? Crtainly around here in the East Midlands, Lib Dems and Independents may have something to say.
I honestly don't know how to call that - although personally I'm looking for a greater local independence from national politics.
Sue R.,
I'm flattered you followed our suggestion - you'll be pleased to know that your spoilt ballot was shown on a laser display board for a gaggle of attending agents to view, I saw about 10 such in Lambeth and Southwark (we got 1,588 proper votes there, and lost about three due to a cock up by polling agents which invalidated about 130 perfectly good votes).
Tell me, how do you know it was my ballot paper, Red Deathy? Was it for Engield and Haringey constituency?
Sue R.,
nope, but I know that your ballot paper will have been displayed on the laser display screen as an anomaly, and will have been recorded as "unclear" in the rejected vote stats.
All such ballot papers were displayed thus.
I would have thought that 'World Socialism' was perfectly clear! Now, if you will excuse me, I'm off to cultivate my garden.
Labour has been ideologically neutral ever since Blair turned up - it's taken Blair's departure for everyone to realise that the party doesn't stand for anything. No principles, no ideology, no philosophy. That is why the voters have abandoned the party in their thousands.