Thatcherism, Blairism and Cameron: a contribution to the debate
Posted on Sunday 20 June, 2010
Filed Under Politics
FIRST Frank Field, now John Hutton. The seamlessness and alacrity with which New Labour politicians take jobs under the Cameron administration, and indeed the Cameron administration’s obvious eagerness to ask them to do so, poses the question of just how much change a change of government entails.
And that puts me in mind of a recent discussion on the Socialist Unity website, in which Andy Newman offers a highly critical review of the recently-published book ‘The Meaning of David Cameron’, penned by leading SWP blogger Richard ‘Lenin’s Tomb’ Seymour.
Newman’s habitual prolixity makes his text hard to follow in places. But what he seems to opine is that Seymour mindlessly paints Blairism as a continuation of Thatcherism, and Cameronism – if we can yet call it that – as a continuation of Blairism. Whether or not that is a fair summation I cannot say, as I have yet to read the work under consideration.
This, for Newman, is to misunderstand ‘the coalitional social nature’ of the Labour Party and ‘the inherently radical but non-collectivist nature of Blair’s social policies’. Socialist Unity’s main writer then points to the increase in spending on health, education and welfare in the New Labour years. Case closed.
‘Blair can be seen as to the right of previous revisionists, but this does not necessarily make him a Thatcherite … By seeking to sell us Cameron as a continuation of Blairism, Richard minimises the possibility of mounting an opposition to the Tories based upon the existing parameters of social democracy, and the trade unions.’
I’m not quite sure what Newman means by ‘based upon the existing parameters of social democracy’. But if I am correct in reading that as equivalent to ‘on a political basis acceptable to a David Miliband-led Labour Party’, it does strike me that Seymour might just have a point.
What Newman also fails to grasp is that while Blairism clearly was not identical to Thatcherism, it was a variation of the same overarching ideology. Both doctrines were essentially neoliberal in character.
Thatcherism can be depicted as laissez faire neoliberalism, taking the role of the state to be the removal of obstacles to the full functioning of the market. The social market neoliberalism of both Blair and Cameron, by contrast, emphasises that the state has a duty to bring about the best possible institutional setting within which markets can achieve maximum efficacy.
Neoliberalism of the latter stripe is consonant with a wide range of state intervention, including investment in human capital, measures to protect the environment, corporate social responsibility and even limited redistribution. Nevertheless, it remains fully within the neoliberal paradigm.
In sum, Blairism amounted to a brand of sugar coated Thatcherism, with the sweeteners succeeding in helping the medicine go down. But from a ruling class perspective, it was functionally equivalent in so far as it was devoted to much the same goals. I guess Seymour might just be right on that score, too.
<<Go back
Comments
13 Responses to “Thatcherism, Blairism and Cameron: a contribution to the debate”
Leave a Reply
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
Dave, you’re a Labour party member, I am not. Please explain to me why Frank Field hasn’t had the whip withdrawn from him.
Jonathan. Maybe Frank is enjoying the whip.
Wait, Newman is the verbose one? Really?!
Social market neoliberalism? It trumps the lack of a social market, I suppose. What was it Chomsky said about the lesser of two evils really not being such a bad thing – we do, after all, get less evil.
13 years of Labour government left the state more capable of intervening in the free running of capitalist society – although admittedly the political will was often lacking. It expanded the scope and acceptability of the public sphere, whatever the objections of tossers like Hutton and Field. OTOH, the Con-Dems will deliberately erode any such ability on the part of our democratic institutions.
There is something fundamentally different in terms of outlook and strategy between Labour and the Tories though. If you can’t see that, why be a member of the party?
Hutton wanted to work for EDF but sadly he has to wait Five years, so the Tories are no problem the ideology was his anyway, Frank Field well why this bloke was in labour is anyone guess, perhaps he was looking for a seat and labour looked best, I hear Mandelson is offering himself to the Tories , saying if they need my help, then I’m sure i can work for labour within the Tories, yes and the wages are nice as well.
I suspect Purnell the pretend I’m a socialist would sell his soul for a job, he can afford a cleaner for his home then.
Politics has always be cut throat back stabbing, but after Blair and brown, I’d take Thatcher any bloody day you know what she was, a Conservative, I’ve no idea what the hell Labour is these days.
Does Blairism really represent a break from old school social democracy: relying on the state to deliver microeconomic efficiency and using growth to address poverty (absolute)? It’s a case of a return to MacDonaldism after the years of Keynsianism, and seeing ‘socialism’ as a simple co-ordination between market actors to make up for market failure.
I think the difference between New Labour and the ConDems is more structural/historic than actual policies. To use an analogy, you have the Tories and New Labour, 2 very different machines that work in very different ways but both end up churning out pretty much the same product. No doubt in my mind that New Labour’s third way policies have actually facilitated the current attack on the public sector and made it far easier for the ConDem’s to achieve, this is because New Labour’s policies were never designed to advance the working class but were really designed to end the historic inflation/unemployment problem. New Labour have over their time in office effectively privatised the public sector, that is, they have put workers under the same regime as workers in a private sector company. They have used their time in office to soften up workers in the public sector to a point where it is very likely they will accept the coming assault on their living standards with a whimper. They have overseen the systematic weakening of the Labour movement, the increasing ‘flexibility’ of the labour market, the ever increasing atomisation of society. They have been utterly reactionary in my estimation. And I won’t even address their foreign policy.
To be fair Labour historically has been in a difficult position, advancing the interests of workers in a system that is not designed to advance their interests. This means that for the Tories it is easier to adopt policies that represent their class, for Labour even when representing working people they have to do it by pandering to the capitalist class. Without a fundamental change that starts to see workers actually take control of their own destiny by for example the formation of co-operative firms, community neighbourhood groups, worker controlled local law enforcement, i.e. the sort of structures that actually challenge the ruling class, then any party whether New Labour, Tory or Communist party will have to address the problems faced by New Labour. This does not excuse New Labour’s pitiful record in office and their inaction to advance the working class.
This brings me back to my opening remark, the difference between New Labour and the ConDems is more historic/structural, so for all their inadequacies New Labour does provide the opportunity, the potential for the political advancement of the labour movement.
Thatcherism to Blairism ~ So, why no mention of the essential Brownism, the “ism” that really nailed Labour and its left fk/wits to neo-liberalism?
ANYWAY…
Today’s Revolutionary Question…
WHO said…”Tomorrow every Duchess in London will want to dine with me”?
Ramsey Macdonald?
John Hutton?
Frank Field?
Nick Griffin?
Nick Robinson?
Reg Kray?
Answer…all of ‘em!
Now, repeat… “I now realise that Mrs Thatcher was right about a great many things including the trade unions” in the shaky state style of Will Hutton (no relation) and win an inclusive “Me Too” T. Shirt.
It’s a Guardian Offer.
Johnno (who’s been “away” for the past 13 yeras) – “…so for all their inadequacies New Labour does provide the opportunity, the potential for the political advancement of the labour movement.”
SPEACHLESS! Even on this site, that surely deserves some kind of special award. Or special needs.
Cde. Seymour does call the Newman “review” a “systematic misrepresentation” so perhaps you’d best get your own copy.
Miliband was on the telly last night seeming to put the same sort of case for Keynesianism as you.
‘Speechless’
To the speechless,
I did say potential and opportunity! I didn’t say New Labour will lead us to the socialist society of tomorrow; in fact I was at pains to point out that only by developing its own forms of ownership can the working class advance. But surely special needs would describe anyone who thinks there is any other working class **political** organisation that can match the networks, connections and electoral history of the Labour party. If you can name any send me the application form.
Surely it’s the latest stage in the development of a managerial class “of and for itself”.
Yeah, they have shadowy demands from other constituencies that must be placated, but first and foremost, they have to be useful to the plutocrats – they must be able to understand their agenda and anticipate their needs.
Cameron is only marginally interesting in that he does appear to have some (specifically English) old class allegiance in himself and amongst his cabinet. More Alec Douglas Home than Margaret Hilda Thatcher.
Still a bag of shit, though.
I believe Frank Field is being allowed to redo his thinking the unthinkable gig because for all his many faults he will produce a thoughtful and intelligent report which will be completely unimplementable, as just like the last time it will demand that we address real and huge social problems – and this will cost vastly more money than not addressing them.
Thus he will eventually prove an even greater embarrassment to Cameron and Clegg than he was to Blair – and if we are lucky Ian Duncan Smith might back him up and cause a minor cabinet split.