JUNE 4th 2009: A GOVERNMENT OF THE LIVING DEAD

By Michael Faulkner - June 14, 2009

Due to the TPJ Magazine publication schedule, this column will not appear until June 14^th, by which time much will have changed on the British political scene. Indeed, things will look quite different in two or three days from now. Gordon Brown’s government is in the grip of a political crisis of a kind that seems to offer no means of escape. It is tempting to compare what are evidently the death agonies of New Labour with the plight of John Major’s Tory administration before 1997.  But in many respects the present crisis is worse than that. Major was able to hold on to the bitter end – to complete a full five years in office after his surprise re-election in 1992. It is very doubtful whether Brown will survive as prime minister for another year and, whether or not he does, it is almost certain that this government will go down to a humiliating defeat at the next general election, whenever it might take place between now and next June.

In May 1997 New Labour was swept to office in a landslide election victory against a tired and discredited Tory administration mired in sleaze and bankrupt of ideas. Blair declared that “a new dawn” had broken. Expectations of the new government were high. It was widely expected that there would be a decisive break with the neo-liberal policies that had virtually destroyed Britain’s manufacturing industries, crippled the trade union movement and privatised most of the country’s public services. But New Labour had no such agenda. Instead, it pursued the “Thatcherite” policies of its predecessors even more aggressively. The frenzy of financial speculation that some have called “casino capitalism” was encouraged by Blair and Brown from the start. This agenda was what was “new” about New Labour.  As has been argued in these columns for the past two years, New Labour broke decisively with the social democratic tradition of the Labour Party. The trade union link, which had been the bedrock of Labour from its earliest days, was only maintained by Blair and Brown because it was the main source of funding for the party.  Blair, with the support of the majority of his cabinet and the parliamentary party, displayed for the whole world to see, the real meaning of New Labour, when he took Britain, against the wishes of the majority of the British people, into the illegal invasion of Iraq. More than any other prime minister before him, he was pleased to subordinate Britain’s foreign policy to that of the U.S.

From that time on, support for his government began to decline. In the election of 2005 Labour won a third term on the basis of 35% of the vote – a drop of 5% on the 2001 results and 8% on 1997. Nevertheless, this result gave Labour an overall parliamentary majority of 96 seats.  The actual percentage of the eligible electoral vote won by Labour in 2005 was 22%. One could hardly wish for a clearer expression of the inequitable outcome of Britain’s first-past-the-post voting system. To say the least, it is long overdue for radical reform.

But nothing about the dismal decline in New Labour’s fortunes since 2003 could have prepared us for the desperate plight in which the government now finds itself. How might we begin to account for the “perfect storm” in which prime minister, cabinet ministers and backbench MPs are blown around like so much flotsam and jetsam?  Previous columns dealing with the government’s handling of the economic crisis have attempted to chart the decline in Gordon Brown’s fortunes. There is certainly a strong personal element involved. Media attacks have been relentless. At the time of writing (4^th June) it appears that there is a serious plot afoot amongst labour MPs to force Brown to stand down. It may succeed. But, even if it does, will a change of leadership be enough to save the government from electoral defeat next year? It is very doubtful.

The present panic – and that is what it is – is over the elections that are taking place in Britain today for control of County Councils and for the European Parliament. Labour is set to do disastrously in both these elections. It is likely that the party will lose the few county councils remaining   under its control. In the European parliament elections (which are conducted on a PR basis) it is expected that Labour will be beaten into third place behind the Tories and Liberal Democrats. It is even possible that they may be beaten by the Europhobic U.K. Independence Party (UKIP). Worse still, there is a serious prospect that the fascist British National Party (BNP) could win one or more seats at Labour’s expense in the Yorkshire and Humber region. Whether or not the results are as bad as the most pessimistic prognostications, there is no doubt that Labour will be decimated.  In the 2004 European elections, on the basis of 22.6% of the vote, they were reduced to 19 MEPs. It is likely that this time their percentage of the vote will fall below 20%. Turnout for both local and European elections in Britain is always low. A very low turnout will benefit the BNP.

Apart from the steady decline in support for New Labour (which has been dealt with in earlier Letters from the U.K.) there are two additional factors that have contributed substantially to public disenchantment with the government, and, to an extent, with parliamentary politics and politicians in general. The first is the financial and economic crisis. Despite much publicised claims by Brown’s supporters that he has led the world on the road to recovery, this has not cut much ice with the electorate. While Chancellor of the Exchequer he gave every encouragement to the financiers who finally brought the economy to its knees. He has never attempted to explain why he did this and why he failed to see the crash coming. Together with most government ministers and most opposition politicians, he is regarded as culpable in bringing about the present crisis. Secondly, and closely connected to the financial crisis, there is the more recent political crisis that has developed over MPs expenses. This is the straw that has broken the camel’s back.  

The details of this tawdry affair are too depressing to treat with any detail here.  For several weeks now information has been made public about inflated and often fraudulent expenses claims made by MPs from the two main parties. Sometimes the amounts involved have been small – in hundreds of pounds, but often there have been claims involving much larger sums. In the present climate of opinion where people are losing their jobs and their homes and where those responsible are seen to make off with huge bonus payments, public anger at perceived malfeasance is near boiling point. Members of Parliament have joined bankers as the least loved public figures. The numbers of those now in the firing line of popular anger and contempt have recently come to include members of the cabinet. Gordon Brown is in the hot seat and his discomfiture increases by the minute. In the last few days there has been a rush of resignations from the cabinet. The latest to jump ship, Communities Secretary Hazel Blears, departed sporting a lapel-button with the message “Rocking the Boat”. Journalists privileged with inside information write of an intensifying feud between vengeful Blairites like Blears and loyal and bitter Brownites like Ed Balls. The whole sorry charade is coming to resemble a comic opera. The Tory opposition, themselves caught up in the expenses scandal and lacking anything like a coherent alternative policy, nevertheless benefit from the government’s agony. At prime minister’s question in the House of Commons yesterday David Cameron asked Brown three times to confirm whether his chancellor and close ally, Alistair Darling, would still be in office next week. Brown refused to answer, leading to speculation that Darling might be replaced in a widely anticipated reshuffle next week. As the chancellor has made it clear that he won’t accept any other portfolio, it could make any attempted reshuffle extremely difficult. If others decide to resign before they are pushed, it is difficult to see how the government could carry on without a change of leader.

The crisis will intensify early next week when the European election results come through. Much has been made of the difficulty of replacing a Labour leader and prime minister if he refuses to resign.  The Labour Party constitution does not make this easy. It is a long drawn out procedure.  So, what is likely to happen?

A few tentative predictions may be made. The county council and European parliamentary election results will be the worst ever suffered by the Labour Party. The pressure to replace Brown will grow, but so will the determination of his allies to avoid what they will regard as a blood-letting. If the party loses all its county council seats in Britain and falls below 20% of the poll in the European elections with UKIP increasing its representation and the BNP gaining a seat or two, Brown will not be able to survive. But the replacement procedure will not be democratic. Brown replaced Blair without facing an election in the party and he will be replaced (probably by Blairite Alan Johnson) by a similar procedure. Should this happen, there will be enormous pressure from the opposition for an early general election. Whether the election comes sooner or later, Labour will lose.

This is, admittedly, a gloomy picture. There is no prospect of any alternative but a Tory government which will not be elected with any great enthusiasm but simply because support for New labour has completely collapsed. The Liberal Democrats will almost certainly increase their parliamentary representation. They are the only realistic hope for the kind of constitutional change this country needs so badly. Optimistically, it may be hoped that the Green Party, which has by far the most radical and progressive policies of any party with a chance of gaining parliamentary seats, may return some members to Westminster – as they surely will increase their representation in the European parliament. Otherwise, one has to look outside parliament. In other European countries, notably France and Germany, there are important regroupings on the left. That has yet to happen in Britain, but who can tell what the future may bring if the economic crisis gets worse.