« Taken for granted - reprise | Main | Be afraid »

August 8, 2006

When does it end

There comes a point when enough is enough, when, in all honesty, you're just too fed up of taking sh*t and the chances of anyone doing anything about are pretty damn near zero.

Daily Express - Blair to stay another year

He was said to be "very definitely up" over his future and didn’t intend this summer to be his last as PM. A Number 10 official said Mr Blair felt there was "unfinished business" and that he wanted "over the next year or so" to see the development of the next generation of ideas for New Labour.

Given his recent shmoozing trip to the US, it's hardly surprising that the bastard feels "up". Especially if he has managed to arrange some deal for when he finally leaves power. As has been said before, Blair's current objective is surely to beat Thatcher's 11 years and 6 months as Prime Minister, regardless of the damage inflicted upon this country's position both at home and abroad.

The fact is that for all his talk about British influence abroad, his slavish adherence to tying British foreign policy with that of the United States has ultimately resulted in our having no independant influence.

The Telegraph - Peace deals with French fries to go

But if Britain's star is in the decline, this is because Washington has finally woken up to the weakness of Mr Blair's domestic position and the ineffectiveness of the Foreign Office, which seems institutionally incapable of dealing with blatant threats to international security.

Even Blair's cabinet choices are influence by Washington.

The Sunday Times - How the US fired Jack Straw

WHEN JACK STRAW was replaced by Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary, it seemed an almost inexplicable event. Mr Straw had been very competent — experienced, serious, moderate and always well briefed. Margaret Beckett is embarrassingly inexperienced. I made inquiries in Washington and was told that Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, had taken exception to Mr Straw’s statement that it would be “nuts” to bomb Iran. The United States, it was said, had put pressure on Tony Blair to change his Foreign Secretary. Mr Straw had been fired at the request of the Bush Administration, particularly at the Pentagon.

And that's not mentioning Robin Cook's departure as a consequence of his criticisms of America's failure to act on the Kyoto Protocol.

So foreign policy is decided in Washington, domestic policy is a mess of sound bites, restatement of failed policies, continued privatisation by the back door and a slavish devotion to money and big business.

Inspite of all of this, we have Blair vowing to stay on for another year, Prescott stripped of his office but still Deputy PM, Gordon Brown plotting and scheming in a so-far ineffectual manner and creeps like Milliband smarming their way into the list of potential successors.

And John Reid has the temerity to state that Tony Blair will leave at a time of his own choosing. That’s what the party wants and what is best for the country.

"The important thing is that the country knows that, whenever Tony Blair leaves, the Labour Party will continue to be a reforming, centre-left, progressive party, addressing the issues this country wants addressed.. Progressive? Centre-left? And as for addressing the issues this country wants, don't make me laugh.

But maybe New Labour is just an inevitable consequence of decisions made at the beginning of the last century. The Fabians and the Independant Labour Party (both participants in the Labour Representation Committee founded in 1900 along with representation from the Social Democratic Federation and trade unionists) decided on a course of reform rather than revolution. They believed that true socialism could only realistically be achieved by reforming the capitalist system, rather than by its abolition. And therein lies the seeds of New Labour's failure. Although appearing radical at the time, piecemeal reform inevitably exposed the Labour Party and its ilk to a dilution of principles and a corruption of ideals. Had Kier Hardie, Ramsay MacDonald and their fellows of the time know where the future would take the Labour Party, one has to wonder whether they might have decided that the radical, revolutionary approach was indeed the better way forward.

The above shouldn't be taken as a criticism of Hardie and the leading lights of the Labour movement at the time. They were living in revolutionary times; Kier Hardie was born less than 40 years after the Peterloo massacre, and Britain throughout the 19th century stood on the precipice of revolution more than once. The failure of revolution in Russia to deliver real power to the people must have been a reassurance that the reform approach was the right one.

Just over 100 years after its formation, the Labour Party has never been further from its roots, from its original aims and objectives. Instead of delivering real power to the people, it has become a party of government whose prime objective is to remain in power with people like Blair reaping the benefits of a system that has always favoured the few rather than the many.

Certainly there are many Labour Party members who have kept the faith to a greater degree; people like Bob Piper and Walter Wolfgang to name but two. And the recent success of the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance in the recent NEC elections shows a glimmer of hope. But it is only a glimmer, and one that could be easily extinguished.

The next 12 months are critical. If Blair is allowed to choose the time of his departure and the nature of both his successor and the party then, as a representation of socialism, Labour will have failed. If it can find a way to rid itself of Blair, end its love affair with the capitalist system and realise that radical reform is as relevant today as it was 100 years ago (and as nothing to do with PFI), then maybe, just maybe, that glimmer of hope can be nutured.

To be honest, I think it is too late. Labour has moved too far to the right, its acceptance of the capitalist system has become almost overwhelming. In the early days of the last century, reform was chosen over revolution. In the early days of this century, revolution looks like the only way forward.

Posted by Clive on August 8, 2006 1:43 PM in the category Labour

Comments

Posted by: anon at August 8, 2006 10:14 PM

Posted by: KeirHardiesCap at August 9, 2006 11:23 AM

Comments Closed