Electoral defeat in 2010 all but certain
By Michael
Faulkner - 17 May 2009
The word
“inevitable” should be used with care. Frequently those who have confidently
claimed that something will “inevitably” turn out the way they predicted it
would, have been proved wrong. Likewise, many ex post facto claims that a particular outcome of a
course of events was inevitable, should be treated sceptically. To take an example from history, it is
often claimed that, given the impact of the political and economic crisis on
Weimar Germany in the early 1930s, the Nazi seizure of power was
inevitable. It was not. A close study of the course of events during the last
months of 1932 shows that a different outcome was possible and could have been
achieved.
When
turning to the British political scene during the past few weeks, it is
tempting to say that the government will go down to inevitable defeat in next
year’s election. In fact it is very difficult to see how this could be avoided.
The prime minister’s personal plight, and that of the Labour Party, now appear to be beyond hope of recovery.
The air of gloom and despondency hanging over them is more than ever reminiscent of the last months of the Tory
government in 1997 prior to New Labour’s triumphant assumption of office. It is still possible to envisage a
change in their fortunes occasioned by, for example, the (unlikely) emergence
of “green shoots” of economic recovery, or some scandal engulfing leading
Tories, or a terrorist attack. Such things cannot be ruled out. But most observers believe that Labour will be defeated in 2010. The
public mood is deeply antipathetic to the government, and particularly to
Gordon Brown. This mood reaches
across the political spectrum and the hostility is not directed solely against
the government. There is a widespread and growing sentiment of cynicism and
disgust about professional politicians. This sentiment is stronger now than it
was a year or so ago because most people regard most politicians as responsible
for the financial and economic melt-down. There is a widespread feeling that members of parliament of
all parties were happy to turn a blind eye to the recklessness of casino
capitalism and were too ready to bail out the banksters after the bubble burst.
The only well-known MP to have escaped this popular judgement is Vince Cable of
the Liberal Democrats, who predicted the crisis and castigated the culprits.
The popular
mood in this country differs from that in the U.S. last year. Widespread
hostility to the Bush administration became galvanised into a nationwide
campaign in support of Barack Obama’s bid for the presidency. There is no great enthusiasm for the
Tory opposition here. The unpleasant memory of eighteen years of Tory
government is still alive in the minds of many. The sense of betrayal by New
Labour has not translated into any real enthusiasm for the opposition. The next
general election will almost certainly be a lack-lustre affair and, unlike the
US presidential election, it will almost certainly result in a record low
turn-out.
If this
prediction is correct, how are we to account for it? It has been argued in
these columns for the past two years that New Labour has effected a decisive
break with the social-democratic tradition of the Labour Party. The Labour
Party was never an anti-capitalist party and previous Labour governments never
seriously challenged the existing economic system. But the party was committed
to a mixed economy and a progressive taxation system – to a more
equitable distribution of wealth. New Labour abandoned these commitments and
bought into the neoliberal “free market” system. Blair and Gordon Brown were
both champions of a lightly regulated financial sector and actively encouraged
the practices that have led to the present crash. Almost everyone closely
associated at cabinet level with Blair and Brown has been implicated in this.
Few dissented and those who did so were either forced to resign or chose to do
so. (Likewise, with a few honourable exceptions, they also loyally supported
the illegal war against Iraq.) Just as Blair saw no reason to apologise for invading Iraq, Brown has
never attempted to explain (let alone apologise for) his close association with,
and admiration for, the banksters. This has not gone unnoticed. These are all
symptoms of a general malaise that has been afflicting the government for some
years. But more recently, the sickness has become very much worse and rot has
begun to set in.
Following a
brief respite at the time of the G.20 summit in London where Brown seemed able
to indulge the pretension that he “bestrode the narrow world like a colossus”,
he now appears cast adrift without a rudder. The self-proclaimed opponent of “spin”, he has been
compromised by the shabby activities of a close aide who plotted to post on a
pro-Brown website scurrilous and mendacious concoctions about Tory leaders. This has been very damaging to Brown
and a gift to the Tories.
Recent
revelations about MPs inflated expense claims have done nothing to endear them
to a public suffering from the effects of the financial crisis. Some cabinet
ministers have been prominent amongst those suspected of a variety of dubious
practices in this area. Brown’s attempt to seize the initiative over this
backfired when he chose to post a video of himself addressing the subject on
YouTube. The prime minister’s personality may properly be described as “dour”.
Someone obviously advised him to smile for the camera. The result has to be
seen to be believed. Smiling obviously does not come easily to Gordon Brown.
His attempt to do so has caused widespread public hilarity.
To round
off a disastrous week for the government, they were defeated in a House of
Commons vote, despite the fact that they have a 60+ overall majority. They were
defeated by the Gurkhas. These fearsome Nepalese warriors have a legendary
status in the British army and among those who glorify Britain’s past military
exploits. Their campaign to be granted residency rights in this country on
retirement has widespread support, even among those generally opposed to
immigrants. The government opposed
the motion introduced by the Lib Dems in support of the Gurkhas. Enough Labour MPs abstained or voted
with the opposition to ensure the government’s defeat. Now the vultures are beginning to
hover. And some of them are inside
the cabinet. A minister, Hazel
Blears, has gone public in an article in The Observer which is a thinly veiled
attack on the prime minister who she effectively accuses of lacking direction.
The government, she says, is “failing to get our message across.” This was the
constant refrain of the Tories before the 1997 election. The implication now,
as then, is that if only we could get the message across, all would be
well. The truth is that no-one
knows what the message is.
The
parliamentary Labour Party has given up. They assume that defeat is certain.
But those looking for a serious progressive alternative to New Labour have
cause for concern. Parliamentary politics and politicians have rarely been held
in such contempt. The Tories are likely to be voted into office with an overall
majority but on a lower poll than even Blair managed in 2005. A Tory government
has nothing to offer and will try to take Britain out of recession by cutting
services even further and reducing tax rates for those on top incomes. They
will work to restore the financial system to its past practices as soon as
possible.
And there
is another cause for concern. Voters in some of the most deprived parts of Britain, mainly in the
midlands and north-west, are abandoning Labour in droves. There is no serious
alternative to Labour on the Left. The various small socialist parties and
groups that one might have imagined would thrive at a time of capitalist
crisis, spend more time fighting each other than they do attempting to unite to
form a viable opposition. Whether the trade union movement will be able to
mobilize workers to serious industrial action such as is happening in France,
is doubtful. Into this power
vacuum on the left there steps a party of the extreme right: The British
National Party. With it roots in
the openly fascist groups that inherited the mantle from Sir Oswald Mosley and
the pre-war British Union of Fascists, the BNP has in recent years attempted to
present a more respectable image. Its claims to speak for the “real” British
people – (real=white) - have produced some notable successes in local
elections. There is a real prospect that in the upcoming elections for the
European parliament (04.06.09) which in Britain are conducted on a PR system,
particularly if the turn-out is low, the BNP could win their first European
seat. The Observer newspaper, which is far from the Left, concludes its
editorial (03.05.09) with a sound
piece of advice:
“The best
antidote to the far right would be a movement that aspires to represent
everyone who feels disenfranchised, alienated, excluded, regardless of race; a
movement that promises solidarity among poorer voters instead of dividing them.
It would speak with moral authority against a political system that looks, to
many voters, grotesquely skewed in the interests of a narrow, wealthy elite.
That no Westminster party can credibly deliver such a message shames the
government. It was once the job of Labour.” 