Nose Peg.
Nose Peg Day, Again?
The credit crises and all that is now flowing from it gives a slow building up of the election pressure to come. This summer offers only a very short period for the government to lay a claim to the direction of the ship of state and pull it away from the rocks that lurk ahead in the depths of the economic morass. Once the late summer recess is over the fever of media election will be out seeking the shifts in expectations over how a voting day in late 2010 could turn out.
I remember well the call at the last election by Polly Toynbee of the guardian to hold ones nose and get out and vote – for Labour; I did. As a supporter member of the labour party for 40 years I am now exhausted. New labour as done me in. I will not be voting for them again, I will be wasting my vote on a Liberal, BNP or if there was a ballot choice – one for no confidence.
Since labour got into government in 1997 it adopted a small conservative stance and followed on the rights political path of individualism and self reliance for society. It eschewed all elements of traditional labour ideals - collectivism, state intervention, public ownership, equality, fairness, social vision or as derided by some, social engineering. Despite voluble expressions of concern for the betterment of society as a whole and against the growing evidence of social disparity over the years, it has consistently, in my opinion played down any real attempt to carry through with the ideals that may have been supported by Keir Hardie. Instead in what might be seen as traditional labour values, in pursuing the seemingly middle of the road appeasement type politics to gain power, one cannot help but think that the party has since gaining that power, done very little to shape a new perspective of politics and raise the inspirational bar for society as a whole. There is no evidence of a fairer more cohesive society; if anything the reverse is more in evidence and under its stewardship there is greater tension in the make up society that has strengthened the adopted attitudes of the previous conservative administrations between the haves, which have strengthened their grip and rights to have whatsoever they can claw onto themselves and have nots, who earn whatever is prearranged for them.
It is indeed very disappointing that even now after 12 years the labour party has not picked up the challenge that was given to it with its initial huge majority of power. Now fast approaching the next election decider, to consider what its historic legacy is to be would be difficult to address. However to my mind the party’s legacy is that it had, for the first time in 60 years had definitive political power given to it that was exceptional. That administrative power more than matched any previous power to dominate parliament and cabinet, much more than the conservative had used in previous times. This power was gained by the party at a time when there was a strong sense in the country that a new direction, a vision, with hope and respect for parliamentary honesty and authority was required to achieve a greater and more inclusive society. An openness of dialogue was offered and a clean administration away from the duplicity of previous administrations; a new beginning. Unfortunately a new beginning is not what transpired.
Some of the pressures of the government that it inherited were pre-wrapped in economic, social, political failures, misguided ideological dreams and earned public systemic miss trust and sleaze. All of which were from the dogma of the right of conservative policies bought by the affluence of lobbying tactics to diminish governmental influences in the affairs of corporate Britain to better the cavalier entrepreneurs in the economy. The constant demand of reduction in taxation, rolling back any socialism of equality, ‘no such thing as society’ and endorsing privateers for the economics of everything lacked any cohesive structure other than promoting segregated affluence. This laid the quick sand foundations of the following era of ‘New Labour’ all of which left little room for dramatic changes in policies other than to portray a ‘safe pair of hands’, this to gain the support of elements of the minor swing voting populace. It could be assumed that in the early years it was a political strategy to initially have the intention to be seen as deliberately not being old labour and to avoid siding with any form of contentious areas that may be deemed to have lost them the previous elections; or to be seen siding with the disaffected workers nor hold with any appearance of conflicts that might be seen to upset the ‘city’, marginal voting middle classes, paper barons or business; creating a mythical third way of governance that satisfied all.
Despite the much hyped third way of the time that seemed to mean a lot but in the event offered little; now it is clear that there was no obvious third way and no social engineering, no pandering to its core supporters, no social privileged laid out to the working classes, and no attempt to identify with the hardcore labour supporters but to scuttle as fast has it could to distance itself away from the labour within the labour party. So in this, New Labour has, as a force for change and actual progression, wasted at least seven years of overall political power to not to leave any real lasting impression on society. Although more money was spent on things like education, health, single parenting, new deal, minimum wage etc; none of this is wrapped in a clear vision easily understood as accepted socially improving policies and none of it may have a lasting effect on society if matched against the previous conservative policies. Indeed considering that state of the UK economy now, labour will be unjustly blamed for profligate waste, and an abasement of parliament power. In all that has been done there is no ingrained good change that cannot be undone.
Change though was forced with The Thatcher era, it has been given the context noun of Thatcherism, an era looked on fondly by affluent deluded middle classes as a period that successfully nurtured their aspirations and allowed elements of the economy generous latitude. A period that later could be contrasted sharply with restricted efforts of new labour, for the conservatives took power and used it to drive forward her agenda that made the social context change, made people more self serving, more introspective, mean, pampered to the wealthy, reduced their taxes, rewarded them and businesses, unwrapped society expectation, privatised anything at a give away cost and said consistently that there was “no such thing as society” and in the process later placed politicians as untrustworthy and self serving. She and her amply rewarded police achieved what no one had done before, she made people aware that in the end they have to rely on themselves by any means and not continue look to the state for support in times of need. She dismantled the ideas that governments use power for the benefit of all and rarely could it be trusted to do the right thing for the majority of people in the country.
Thatcher’s policies formed the basis of the dramatic increase in wealth for the well off, wealth that Blair and Brown later claimed was due to their own policies which had also made everybody better off and later caused them to be relaxed about the filthy rich. Never the less and not incidentally, under these two the divide between rich and poor has got considerable wider with pay differentials between the managers and the managed expanding and with the tax take proportionally falling heavier on the average wage earner; these were inequitable developments that they choose to ignore.
The long term effect of the policies that these two parties pursued were not really of an opposing nature, one was definitively driven by ideological fever that sequenced the ethos of Thatcherism, the other had none that could claim an identifiable descriptive noun (Blairism / Brownism?) separating it from the conservatives and unlike the conservatives of the time, lacked any progressive commitment. It is a great pity that despite the power the new labour party held, they lacked the same dogmatic dedication to a cause that the conservative had in only considering the wealth creators in policy matters and they therefore lacked the drive to tackle social construct improvements.
That the labour party has failed is now self evident. The failure of the labour party cannot just be placed on Brown and Blair alone though. In order to purge the stain of past labour debacles, they with others offered a new public relations front for the party which as a whole the party sought to adopt in order to gain and keep in power. The lack of long lasting social improvement that could have been gained has been lost by the corporate culpable mendacity of the labour party as a whole; it is not just down to two men. It was shown on many occasions that the party did not have the stomach to challenge their own newly developed image or the direction it was being corralled into for it did not want a Thatcher “et tu brute” day, did not want to risk being seen as reverting to old labour, socialist driven, or untrustworthy in conflict and weak on defence. The labour party as a body kept power by posturing to the marginal voters, the middle of the road vicarious power base of a limited social caucus and this inevitably led to policies that did not look to be socialist but more conservative right wing.
Now there is no doubt that many party supporters have moved away from labour, it is loosing its key support not because of Iraq, now fading from news or the current horrible economic crisis in which it has played its part in generating, or because of the current exposure of MP’s dubious expenses claims “claimed within the rules” but because it has not lived up to the ‘hope’ unrequited when it gained power. It has not offered a vision of where it socially wants to go. Some have hoped that Brown will reconnect with the labour electorate yet in order to do so he will have to rely more on inclusive and dramatic home policies than a photogenic personality and address tasks on social grounds that are unchanged by previous leadership, particularly on economic fairness, immigration, pensions, ageism, housing, energy, PR, EU, a constitution and reformation of the lord and parliament with compulsory voting and referendums.
One element that may give the party a lift is the appalling state of the economy and the dire situation that is to befall the country over the next decade. No doubt the party amongst others have been asleep at the helm, to now be in the worst economy crises that has ever been created, (baring war) to be blamed with gross miss management by the labour party may be wholly unfair but if it fights to regain the rights of social and economic justice for the working class, it just may pull another term off. Brown has nothing to loose by being socially radical on all fronts, it will not matter if all of the new policy directions cannot be delivered in one sitting, although some must like pensions, immigrations and PR; it will be enough to lay out an ideology that stimulates action to mark a clear deviation from conservatism to one that offers a futuristic challenge that may just become known as a new enlightened era away from the dictates of ‘laissez faire’ market forces and rampant greed.
Politics is about quality policy doctrinaires and a new enlightened dogma; to generate a paradigm shift in the way people think a country can be run and provide change to the administrative infrastructure to create inclusiveness of authority. It is about using power to create and influence good progressive change hopefully for the battement of society and the country. It is about having an aspiration vision that is shared with people to deliver sustainable improvements and not to have cause to beggar thy neighbour. Opportunity for all should be a reality and the privilege driven meritocracy that seems to now govern aught not to have the supremacy it has been given. The growing divide between the affluent influentially powerful and the disengaged population is disquieting, in this it creates an anomie situation in which no amount of weak gestures will offer equitable change.
What would it take me to go with labour again?
Well for me it is, if at the next annual conference in September 2009 Brown came out with hard hitting policy agendas that intimates it will brook no opposition, that is an immediate road map to create a fair society, sharing of wealth and opportunity for the vast majority of common workers, not frightened of saying taxes must rise and to let them be hypothecated to specific targets perhaps as on a pension reformation, social housing and tackle immigration etc; then I might be persuaded. Clearly such a stance to reconnect with a socialist progressive ideology will be fought off on the basis of how it is to be afforded when the economy is in hock – well if we the people can bale out the banks and the privilege few we can also invest in ourselves and our future generation.
Unfortunately there is little sign that despite all the experiences of the past 12 years, or those of the recent debacles over the credit crisis and MP’s ‘allowances’, that there will be any structural changes or imaginative policy transformations likely to occur. Politicians have learned to play a long game; they acknowledge the anger of distrust felt towards them as a body but as it is largely impotent can patiently ignore it to hope for a reconstructed business as usual.
The smell of rancid obsolete politics is in the air and a nose peg won’t cover it.
So for me, now, New Labour is a proven lost cause and the old one is moribund.
© Renot 2009
107091230
The credit crises and all that is now flowing from it gives a slow building up of the election pressure to come. This summer offers only a very short period for the government to lay a claim to the direction of the ship of state and pull it away from the rocks that lurk ahead in the depths of the economic morass. Once the late summer recess is over the fever of media election will be out seeking the shifts in expectations over how a voting day in late 2010 could turn out.
I remember well the call at the last election by Polly Toynbee of the guardian to hold ones nose and get out and vote – for Labour; I did. As a supporter member of the labour party for 40 years I am now exhausted. New labour as done me in. I will not be voting for them again, I will be wasting my vote on a Liberal, BNP or if there was a ballot choice – one for no confidence.
Since labour got into government in 1997 it adopted a small conservative stance and followed on the rights political path of individualism and self reliance for society. It eschewed all elements of traditional labour ideals - collectivism, state intervention, public ownership, equality, fairness, social vision or as derided by some, social engineering. Despite voluble expressions of concern for the betterment of society as a whole and against the growing evidence of social disparity over the years, it has consistently, in my opinion played down any real attempt to carry through with the ideals that may have been supported by Keir Hardie. Instead in what might be seen as traditional labour values, in pursuing the seemingly middle of the road appeasement type politics to gain power, one cannot help but think that the party has since gaining that power, done very little to shape a new perspective of politics and raise the inspirational bar for society as a whole. There is no evidence of a fairer more cohesive society; if anything the reverse is more in evidence and under its stewardship there is greater tension in the make up society that has strengthened the adopted attitudes of the previous conservative administrations between the haves, which have strengthened their grip and rights to have whatsoever they can claw onto themselves and have nots, who earn whatever is prearranged for them.
It is indeed very disappointing that even now after 12 years the labour party has not picked up the challenge that was given to it with its initial huge majority of power. Now fast approaching the next election decider, to consider what its historic legacy is to be would be difficult to address. However to my mind the party’s legacy is that it had, for the first time in 60 years had definitive political power given to it that was exceptional. That administrative power more than matched any previous power to dominate parliament and cabinet, much more than the conservative had used in previous times. This power was gained by the party at a time when there was a strong sense in the country that a new direction, a vision, with hope and respect for parliamentary honesty and authority was required to achieve a greater and more inclusive society. An openness of dialogue was offered and a clean administration away from the duplicity of previous administrations; a new beginning. Unfortunately a new beginning is not what transpired.
Some of the pressures of the government that it inherited were pre-wrapped in economic, social, political failures, misguided ideological dreams and earned public systemic miss trust and sleaze. All of which were from the dogma of the right of conservative policies bought by the affluence of lobbying tactics to diminish governmental influences in the affairs of corporate Britain to better the cavalier entrepreneurs in the economy. The constant demand of reduction in taxation, rolling back any socialism of equality, ‘no such thing as society’ and endorsing privateers for the economics of everything lacked any cohesive structure other than promoting segregated affluence. This laid the quick sand foundations of the following era of ‘New Labour’ all of which left little room for dramatic changes in policies other than to portray a ‘safe pair of hands’, this to gain the support of elements of the minor swing voting populace. It could be assumed that in the early years it was a political strategy to initially have the intention to be seen as deliberately not being old labour and to avoid siding with any form of contentious areas that may be deemed to have lost them the previous elections; or to be seen siding with the disaffected workers nor hold with any appearance of conflicts that might be seen to upset the ‘city’, marginal voting middle classes, paper barons or business; creating a mythical third way of governance that satisfied all.
Despite the much hyped third way of the time that seemed to mean a lot but in the event offered little; now it is clear that there was no obvious third way and no social engineering, no pandering to its core supporters, no social privileged laid out to the working classes, and no attempt to identify with the hardcore labour supporters but to scuttle as fast has it could to distance itself away from the labour within the labour party. So in this, New Labour has, as a force for change and actual progression, wasted at least seven years of overall political power to not to leave any real lasting impression on society. Although more money was spent on things like education, health, single parenting, new deal, minimum wage etc; none of this is wrapped in a clear vision easily understood as accepted socially improving policies and none of it may have a lasting effect on society if matched against the previous conservative policies. Indeed considering that state of the UK economy now, labour will be unjustly blamed for profligate waste, and an abasement of parliament power. In all that has been done there is no ingrained good change that cannot be undone.
Change though was forced with The Thatcher era, it has been given the context noun of Thatcherism, an era looked on fondly by affluent deluded middle classes as a period that successfully nurtured their aspirations and allowed elements of the economy generous latitude. A period that later could be contrasted sharply with restricted efforts of new labour, for the conservatives took power and used it to drive forward her agenda that made the social context change, made people more self serving, more introspective, mean, pampered to the wealthy, reduced their taxes, rewarded them and businesses, unwrapped society expectation, privatised anything at a give away cost and said consistently that there was “no such thing as society” and in the process later placed politicians as untrustworthy and self serving. She and her amply rewarded police achieved what no one had done before, she made people aware that in the end they have to rely on themselves by any means and not continue look to the state for support in times of need. She dismantled the ideas that governments use power for the benefit of all and rarely could it be trusted to do the right thing for the majority of people in the country.
Thatcher’s policies formed the basis of the dramatic increase in wealth for the well off, wealth that Blair and Brown later claimed was due to their own policies which had also made everybody better off and later caused them to be relaxed about the filthy rich. Never the less and not incidentally, under these two the divide between rich and poor has got considerable wider with pay differentials between the managers and the managed expanding and with the tax take proportionally falling heavier on the average wage earner; these were inequitable developments that they choose to ignore.
The long term effect of the policies that these two parties pursued were not really of an opposing nature, one was definitively driven by ideological fever that sequenced the ethos of Thatcherism, the other had none that could claim an identifiable descriptive noun (Blairism / Brownism?) separating it from the conservatives and unlike the conservatives of the time, lacked any progressive commitment. It is a great pity that despite the power the new labour party held, they lacked the same dogmatic dedication to a cause that the conservative had in only considering the wealth creators in policy matters and they therefore lacked the drive to tackle social construct improvements.
That the labour party has failed is now self evident. The failure of the labour party cannot just be placed on Brown and Blair alone though. In order to purge the stain of past labour debacles, they with others offered a new public relations front for the party which as a whole the party sought to adopt in order to gain and keep in power. The lack of long lasting social improvement that could have been gained has been lost by the corporate culpable mendacity of the labour party as a whole; it is not just down to two men. It was shown on many occasions that the party did not have the stomach to challenge their own newly developed image or the direction it was being corralled into for it did not want a Thatcher “et tu brute” day, did not want to risk being seen as reverting to old labour, socialist driven, or untrustworthy in conflict and weak on defence. The labour party as a body kept power by posturing to the marginal voters, the middle of the road vicarious power base of a limited social caucus and this inevitably led to policies that did not look to be socialist but more conservative right wing.
Now there is no doubt that many party supporters have moved away from labour, it is loosing its key support not because of Iraq, now fading from news or the current horrible economic crisis in which it has played its part in generating, or because of the current exposure of MP’s dubious expenses claims “claimed within the rules” but because it has not lived up to the ‘hope’ unrequited when it gained power. It has not offered a vision of where it socially wants to go. Some have hoped that Brown will reconnect with the labour electorate yet in order to do so he will have to rely more on inclusive and dramatic home policies than a photogenic personality and address tasks on social grounds that are unchanged by previous leadership, particularly on economic fairness, immigration, pensions, ageism, housing, energy, PR, EU, a constitution and reformation of the lord and parliament with compulsory voting and referendums.
One element that may give the party a lift is the appalling state of the economy and the dire situation that is to befall the country over the next decade. No doubt the party amongst others have been asleep at the helm, to now be in the worst economy crises that has ever been created, (baring war) to be blamed with gross miss management by the labour party may be wholly unfair but if it fights to regain the rights of social and economic justice for the working class, it just may pull another term off. Brown has nothing to loose by being socially radical on all fronts, it will not matter if all of the new policy directions cannot be delivered in one sitting, although some must like pensions, immigrations and PR; it will be enough to lay out an ideology that stimulates action to mark a clear deviation from conservatism to one that offers a futuristic challenge that may just become known as a new enlightened era away from the dictates of ‘laissez faire’ market forces and rampant greed.
Politics is about quality policy doctrinaires and a new enlightened dogma; to generate a paradigm shift in the way people think a country can be run and provide change to the administrative infrastructure to create inclusiveness of authority. It is about using power to create and influence good progressive change hopefully for the battement of society and the country. It is about having an aspiration vision that is shared with people to deliver sustainable improvements and not to have cause to beggar thy neighbour. Opportunity for all should be a reality and the privilege driven meritocracy that seems to now govern aught not to have the supremacy it has been given. The growing divide between the affluent influentially powerful and the disengaged population is disquieting, in this it creates an anomie situation in which no amount of weak gestures will offer equitable change.
What would it take me to go with labour again?
Well for me it is, if at the next annual conference in September 2009 Brown came out with hard hitting policy agendas that intimates it will brook no opposition, that is an immediate road map to create a fair society, sharing of wealth and opportunity for the vast majority of common workers, not frightened of saying taxes must rise and to let them be hypothecated to specific targets perhaps as on a pension reformation, social housing and tackle immigration etc; then I might be persuaded. Clearly such a stance to reconnect with a socialist progressive ideology will be fought off on the basis of how it is to be afforded when the economy is in hock – well if we the people can bale out the banks and the privilege few we can also invest in ourselves and our future generation.
Unfortunately there is little sign that despite all the experiences of the past 12 years, or those of the recent debacles over the credit crisis and MP’s ‘allowances’, that there will be any structural changes or imaginative policy transformations likely to occur. Politicians have learned to play a long game; they acknowledge the anger of distrust felt towards them as a body but as it is largely impotent can patiently ignore it to hope for a reconstructed business as usual.
The smell of rancid obsolete politics is in the air and a nose peg won’t cover it.
So for me, now, New Labour is a proven lost cause and the old one is moribund.
© Renot 2009
107091230
posted by Renot at 4:24 am
0 comments
