Issue
22 Editorial
New Labour came to power on a wave of optimism, driven above all by its agenda of modernisation. Crucially, however, their mantle of modernity functioned not only as a critique of the Conservatives (as it continues to do, with the latter losing more of the plot by the day); modernisation was also used to distinguish New Labour from what was seen as an old-fashioned left. With not too much concern about the detail, New Labour pursued the modernising project to the full, aided by decades of left failure. The need for modernisation was pulled out time and again, as their one essential truth; 'if you want to win you have to change'; 'we have the vision and means to change Britain for good'; 'We were elected as New Labour, we will govern as New Labour'… etc, etc.
This journal, along with others from the new left tradition, has contested New Labour's modernising credentials: it is not as modern as it thinks it is. Moreover, its particular claims to modernity have been compromised by its unwillingness to address power, to decisively break away from the Thatcherite (neo-liberal) consensus, or to fully modernise the constitutional and political system as in the House of Lords debacle). Increasingly, this gives the impression that it is managing post-imperial decline rather than leading 'a great country on the way up', as Blair put it in his conference speech in October.
Developments over recent months have given the strongest indications yet of its failures in this regard. At the time of the golden jubilee, New Labour presented the monarchy - in the absence of any republican critique it has to be said - as a truly modern affair, even (God help us) as an icon of multiculturalism, a symbol of the modernising aura with which it was governing the country. Even the monarchy, with its 'open house' and streamlined family could be 'managed' and 'manoeuvred' into the new century. For a few days in June 2002, with large crowds assembled, and as long as England stayed in the World Cup, this seemed to carry some public acquiescence. The Paul Burrell 'What the Butler Saw' episode has put all this into perspective. Not only did it expose the monarchy as still governed by feudal relationships with its staff, based on backhanders and favours; it also revealed New Labour's support for the most backward of all our traditional institutions. In one of the Queen's rare interventions in the legal process, in a case whose legal ramifications are not as yet clear, Blair felt driven to defend this anachronistic and do-it-yourself constitutional prerogative. On this issue there was not even a pause to consider any modernising agenda.
New Labour's language of modernity and efficiency has little place for idealism. Its attempts to make a virtue of pragmatism, of not believing in the 'rigidity' of ideology, may have won short-term plaudits, but they are an underlying reason for New Labour's failure to convince in its long-term project for the country. As Michael Jacobs, General Secretary of the Fabian Society, argued in a recent issue of Prospect, managerialism is no substitute for the capacity of ideology to clarify political values and strategy. Ideology is also an important vehicle for enabling parties to connect with people, to provide a sense of identity and to win the interest of new generations.
This positive view of ideology was evident at the European Social Forum in Florence in November 2002, a massive gathering of socialists, environmentalists, pacifists opposed to war against Iraq and social movement activists, who came together seeking a dialogue on ways of living beyond neo-liberalism. For New Labour, no doubt, this was a rabble of extremists, or, at best, 'pessimistic' or 'utopian' anti-globalists, engaged in futile demonstrations and protest. But it is a big mistake to dismiss the Forum in this way. For one thing, the significance of this gathering has not been lost on mainstream left and social democratic parties in Europe, many of whom need allies to their left if they are to form winning coalitions. In Italy it has accelerated a debate over the leadership of the centre-left coalition, and about what kind of relationship it needs to find with the new movements. Even Romano Prodi has said we need to listen to a new generation.
New Labour currently presides over the lowest voting turnouts recorded in British political history, and relies for its ideas on a closed group of 'policy wonks', who have a very limited experience of politics beyond think tanks. It needs to recognise that stimulating an interest in politics will not come from enforced citizenship lessons decided by the Home Secretary.
Perhaps it is their attempts to modernise public services that will be most critical for New Labour. It was, after all, their main election promise. It is here that their merger of modernisation with marketisation is most apparent. They seem to have given up any belief not only in the idea of public ownership, but in the ethics which have sustained the public sector - and which are often imbibed by those who work in it. Indeed it has been left to public sector workers - tube drivers and fire-fighters in recent times - to help make the case. New Labour's response to the fire-fighters' demands, namely that there could be no pay increase without 'modernisation', was revealing. This time modernisation has been the justification for opposing union demands, for proposing cuts in the workforce, and for demanding 'flexibility' in working hours. Their response also shows New Labour's belief that they alone have the ability to define what modernisation is: the FBU's alternative approach to modernisation has not been given any consideration.
All this is a continuance of the growing trend towards deploying modernisation in support of a move away from left ideas. In the past, when the left needed to construct a new engagement with society, there was often some justification for this rhetoric. Now, however, with a new collectivism on the horizon, it is New Labour that is beginning to look outdated and unconvincing in its arguments.
A key component of the third way approach to managing society is the idea that forms of ownership are no longer important; that it is how things are delivered that counts. In many essential public services this has clearly been shown to be untrue, as is evidenced, for example, in concerns over safety in the privatised train service, in increasing inequality of access to fee-charging universities, and in continuing and wide-ranging inequalities in healthcare provision. Wider European experience shows that there are key benefits for keeping essential services in the public sector. New Labour doesn't believe this message, however, seeing private sector initiatives as the only model, a viewpoint brought home by the adulation of private entrepreneurs at every opportunity by New Labour advisers. The marketisation of public services is now becoming a New Labour dogma. Nobody, least of all transport experts, believes privatisation of the tube is a good idea; yet we are having it anyway. As New Labour's idea of modernisation collapses further into marketisation, one of the big questions facing modern Britain - how to re-create a belief in the public interest after its near destruction by years of neo-liberalism - will have to be addressed by others.
GA DM, SD
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |