New Labour
New Labour?
New labour or should it be new liberal labour as some commentators are now apt to want to redefine the past 13 years, for the labour party that has risen to its current unpopular state.
So Mr T. Blair is to leave the prime ministers office after ten years in the chair as the “best labour prime minister since the war”. The evidence for this pronouncement is still a bit scarce but no doubt with the passage of time some form of merits assessment can be made as to the actual effectiveness of the man and his political drive.
The discussion at the moment is what is to be his legacy, what has he achieved that can be called his legacy which could stand the test of time? Is there a legacy that is strong enough for him to be remembered as the man responsible for bringing about a lasting social change and not just the man who picked up the work of others to help re-brand the image, status and policies of the old labour party?.
So far his legacy is hidden under the uncertainty of the immediate moment, a moment that can only be marked with the question of why he is stepping down and the known ‘high’ spots of the party like the minimum wage, pension failure, Iraq conflict, FOI act, out off control immigration, ‘spin’ illusive meritocracy and N Ireland.
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 social engineering. In pursuing the seemingly middle of the road appeasement type politics to gain power, one cannot help but think that he and the party have 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 his stewardship there is greater tension in the make up society that has strengthened the adopted attitudes of the previous conservative administration. In all this there is no ingrained change that cannot be undone.
To my mind his legacy is that he had, for the first time in 60 years had political power given to him and the party that was exceptional in that it more than matched any previous power to dominate parliament and cabinet, much more than the conservative have used in previous times. This power was given to 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 authority was required to achieve a greater and more inclusive society. An openness of dialogue and clean administration away from the duplicity of previous administrations; a new beginning. Unfortunate a new beginning is not what transpired.
Some of the pressures of government was pre-wrapped in economic, social, political failure, ideological dreams and public systemic miss trust, all of which were inherited from the past which left little room for dramatic change other than to portray a ‘safe pair of hands’. Initially the intention was to be seen as deliberately not be old labour and avoid siding with any form of contention, the workers, or with any appearance of conflict that might be seen to upset the city, marginal voting middle classes, paper barons or business.
The authority the that he gained could have allowed him to put in place the beginnings of some sweeping long lasting changes however the first term was largely a wasted opportunity that deteriorated to high profile controlling spin, to maintain confidence of marginal votes and to secure a second term. In adopting his own publicly high profile, parliament power was marginalised by the use of executive authority and controlled agendas to gain his own conservative direction and he exercised it in a bipartisan way, using the power of the appointed advisors against civil servants and the party. It was apparent very early on that he was also being less adventurous in the use of the considerable power that was gained in the election to really make a step change in the way politics was portrayed and enacted for the benefit of the ‘working class’, the traditional party supporter, opportunity improvements for education and health but ignored the selfish society. This lack of social vision and inspirational direction to some extent paraphrased his ‘third way’
Despite the much hyped third way that seemed to mean a lot but in the event offered little; now it is clear that there was no obvious third way, no social engineering, no pandering to his core supporters, no social privileged laid out to the working classes, and no attempt to identify with the core supporters but to run as fast has he could to distance himself and the labour party away from the labour within the labour party.
He 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, and single parenting, none of this is wrapped in a clear vision easily understood as socially improving policies and none of it has had a lasting effect as Thatcherism policies did that could be called Blairism.
Thatcher on the other hand 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, rewarded them and businesses, unwrapped society expectation, placed politicians as untrustworthy and self serving and privatised anything at a give away cost and said consistently that there was “no such thing as society”. She and her police archived 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 idea that governments use power for the benefit of all and generally could be trusted. Thatcher’s policies formed the basis of the dramatic increase in wealth for the well off that Blair now claims are due to his policies which has made everybody better off but under him the divide between rich and poor has got considerable wider.
One can lay responsibility on his watch for a few things good and bad and the one that will stick most will be his infatuated pandering to the Bush gang that led him to throw in with an illegal unjustified war, built on the arranged and organised spin of WMD, which will have such a resounding effect on the future. His ability to drive through his decisions on this issue and to subsequently ride out the furore that followed the unmitigated failure of his and bushes war on terror, showed a learned politic deftness that must be admired, yet it is a great pity that he lacked the same commitment to tackle social order or issues like pensions, ageism, immigration, city greed, housing, social chapter, constitution etc.
The failure of his administration cannot just be place on him alone though. In order to purge the stain of past labour debacles, he offered a new front for the party which as a whole the party sought to adopt in order to keep in power. Therefore 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 one man. 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, untrustworthy in conflict and weak on defence. The labour party as 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 overtly look to be socialist but more 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 but because it has not lived up to the hope unspecified when it gained power, it has not offered a vision of where it socially wants to go. The labour party has a lot of ground to make up and Brown will have very little time to do it but he must succeed otherwise the damaged done so far will see labour out at the next election. Some hope that Brown will reconnect with the labour electorate yet in order to do so he will have to rely more on inclusive dramatic home policies than photogenic personality and address tasks on social grounds that are unchanged by Blair’s leadership, particularly immigration, pensions, ageism and energy.
For the moment the limelight still rest on Blair, so what will he do now once he gets over the hurt of bailing out early for a slip of the tongue? Well he will obviously shake the money tree of opportunity, will want to open the gate of heaven with some good deeds, and hope that organisations will fall over them selves to offer him a lucrative position. He may like to be the first constitutional presidential minister of Europe; for gloss, spin and vacuous achievement I can think of no one better.
11.05.07P
© Renot 2007
New labour or should it be new liberal labour as some commentators are now apt to want to redefine the past 13 years, for the labour party that has risen to its current unpopular state.
So Mr T. Blair is to leave the prime ministers office after ten years in the chair as the “best labour prime minister since the war”. The evidence for this pronouncement is still a bit scarce but no doubt with the passage of time some form of merits assessment can be made as to the actual effectiveness of the man and his political drive.
The discussion at the moment is what is to be his legacy, what has he achieved that can be called his legacy which could stand the test of time? Is there a legacy that is strong enough for him to be remembered as the man responsible for bringing about a lasting social change and not just the man who picked up the work of others to help re-brand the image, status and policies of the old labour party?.
So far his legacy is hidden under the uncertainty of the immediate moment, a moment that can only be marked with the question of why he is stepping down and the known ‘high’ spots of the party like the minimum wage, pension failure, Iraq conflict, FOI act, out off control immigration, ‘spin’ illusive meritocracy and N Ireland.
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 social engineering. In pursuing the seemingly middle of the road appeasement type politics to gain power, one cannot help but think that he and the party have 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 his stewardship there is greater tension in the make up society that has strengthened the adopted attitudes of the previous conservative administration. In all this there is no ingrained change that cannot be undone.
To my mind his legacy is that he had, for the first time in 60 years had political power given to him and the party that was exceptional in that it more than matched any previous power to dominate parliament and cabinet, much more than the conservative have used in previous times. This power was given to 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 authority was required to achieve a greater and more inclusive society. An openness of dialogue and clean administration away from the duplicity of previous administrations; a new beginning. Unfortunate a new beginning is not what transpired.
Some of the pressures of government was pre-wrapped in economic, social, political failure, ideological dreams and public systemic miss trust, all of which were inherited from the past which left little room for dramatic change other than to portray a ‘safe pair of hands’. Initially the intention was to be seen as deliberately not be old labour and avoid siding with any form of contention, the workers, or with any appearance of conflict that might be seen to upset the city, marginal voting middle classes, paper barons or business.
The authority the that he gained could have allowed him to put in place the beginnings of some sweeping long lasting changes however the first term was largely a wasted opportunity that deteriorated to high profile controlling spin, to maintain confidence of marginal votes and to secure a second term. In adopting his own publicly high profile, parliament power was marginalised by the use of executive authority and controlled agendas to gain his own conservative direction and he exercised it in a bipartisan way, using the power of the appointed advisors against civil servants and the party. It was apparent very early on that he was also being less adventurous in the use of the considerable power that was gained in the election to really make a step change in the way politics was portrayed and enacted for the benefit of the ‘working class’, the traditional party supporter, opportunity improvements for education and health but ignored the selfish society. This lack of social vision and inspirational direction to some extent paraphrased his ‘third way’
Despite the much hyped third way that seemed to mean a lot but in the event offered little; now it is clear that there was no obvious third way, no social engineering, no pandering to his core supporters, no social privileged laid out to the working classes, and no attempt to identify with the core supporters but to run as fast has he could to distance himself and the labour party away from the labour within the labour party.
He 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, and single parenting, none of this is wrapped in a clear vision easily understood as socially improving policies and none of it has had a lasting effect as Thatcherism policies did that could be called Blairism.
Thatcher on the other hand 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, rewarded them and businesses, unwrapped society expectation, placed politicians as untrustworthy and self serving and privatised anything at a give away cost and said consistently that there was “no such thing as society”. She and her police archived 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 idea that governments use power for the benefit of all and generally could be trusted. Thatcher’s policies formed the basis of the dramatic increase in wealth for the well off that Blair now claims are due to his policies which has made everybody better off but under him the divide between rich and poor has got considerable wider.
One can lay responsibility on his watch for a few things good and bad and the one that will stick most will be his infatuated pandering to the Bush gang that led him to throw in with an illegal unjustified war, built on the arranged and organised spin of WMD, which will have such a resounding effect on the future. His ability to drive through his decisions on this issue and to subsequently ride out the furore that followed the unmitigated failure of his and bushes war on terror, showed a learned politic deftness that must be admired, yet it is a great pity that he lacked the same commitment to tackle social order or issues like pensions, ageism, immigration, city greed, housing, social chapter, constitution etc.
The failure of his administration cannot just be place on him alone though. In order to purge the stain of past labour debacles, he offered a new front for the party which as a whole the party sought to adopt in order to keep in power. Therefore 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 one man. 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, untrustworthy in conflict and weak on defence. The labour party as 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 overtly look to be socialist but more 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 but because it has not lived up to the hope unspecified when it gained power, it has not offered a vision of where it socially wants to go. The labour party has a lot of ground to make up and Brown will have very little time to do it but he must succeed otherwise the damaged done so far will see labour out at the next election. Some hope that Brown will reconnect with the labour electorate yet in order to do so he will have to rely more on inclusive dramatic home policies than photogenic personality and address tasks on social grounds that are unchanged by Blair’s leadership, particularly immigration, pensions, ageism and energy.
For the moment the limelight still rest on Blair, so what will he do now once he gets over the hurt of bailing out early for a slip of the tongue? Well he will obviously shake the money tree of opportunity, will want to open the gate of heaven with some good deeds, and hope that organisations will fall over them selves to offer him a lucrative position. He may like to be the first constitutional presidential minister of Europe; for gloss, spin and vacuous achievement I can think of no one better.
11.05.07P
© Renot 2007
Labels: Blair, Brown, Labour Party, New Labour
posted by Renot at 2:13 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home