LENIN'S TOMB

 

Wednesday, June 16, 2004

The Liberal Reaction to New Labour's Drubbing at the Polls... posted by Richard Seymour

A disastrous result for Labour in the polls has prompted a series of analytical turns by top liberal commentators, which, rather conveniently, evacuates the ills of Labour policy from the picture. Today, two pieces have appeared in The Guardian with this effect, from arch-Blairites Polly Toynbee and David Aaronovitch . Aaronovitch begins his piece by recounting a conversation he may or may not have had with a rather cartoonish, stereotypical cabby. The bloody taxi driver is seething from his gut about everything, from immigrants to Iraq to that old classic, Europe. This prompts a journey through the small party vote from Right to Left, in which the thesis emerges that they are all populist parties. That’s right – The Greens, Respect, UKIP, the BNP – we’re all in the same boat, all descendants of that petit-bourgeois grumpster, Pierre Poujade.

Now, as far as UKIP is concerned, his case is impeccable. And he expends a number of paragraphs reviewing much of their dishonest, xenophobic drivel. Not merely anti-European, they are also poisonously anti-immigrant, holding them responsible for the lack of available care homes for the elderly and so on. On the BNP, he can’t be far away. Fascism has always manifested itself in populist ways, expressing both the petit-bourgeois resentment of the upper class and of the ‘cosmopolitan’ elements who you can be sure are either stealing our welfare money or perverting our kids, or both. But where he begins to falter is precisely where he thinks he is making his case most forceful. He describes Respect and the Greens as populist – the former, because we appealed to Muslims "on a similar emotional basis to the anti-EU campaign of UKIP". Did we? Yes, you see, we went round suggesting that Muslims were uniquely "victimised, targeted, oppressed" not realising that the Nato bombing of the Balkans proved that this could not be so. And the government, after all, have made many efforts to "build links" with the "community". (That odious little word, "community" – everyone uses it, even Respect. The "Jewish community", "the divided communities of Northern Ireland", "the elderly community". No wonder ‘community’ is the master-concept of the Third Way. It is unctuous, patronising, homogenising… never mind.)

Suppose we assume that it is possible that the bombing of Yugoslavia had something to do with defending Muslims from Serb atrocities fuelled by Islamophobic racism. I know it's a stretch of the imagination, but just suppose, for arguments' sake. This would have nothing whatever to do with how Muslims are treated in Britain. As I have already noted, it just so happens that the increase in Islamophobia in recent years is not merely an elevation in street prejudice, but is actually institutionalised in key government policies and behaviour. The Labour government would never have had to worry about building links with Muslims if it had not been so piteously pro-Israel, so adamantly up Bush’s ring, so hostile to asylum seekers and so willing to play with the language of racism. Muslims were overwhelmingly Labour, and would have remained so were it not for such policies.

But why are the Greens populist? Because they articulate a populist message that “they” (the corporations) are poisoning “us”. The Greens talk of GM foods as if they were a health-hazard but, Aaronovitch avers, there is no evidence that genetically modified foods are dangerous for one’s health. True enough, but I heard tell that GM cauliflowers were apt to deform into David Aaronovitch look-a-likes. At any rate, this is an unfair criticism of the Greens. The trouble with GM crops is that, like Thalidomide, unsatisfactory testing can easily produce results that invite complacency. The driving force behind the production of GM crops is the desire of companies like Monsanto to make a profit out of them – there is nothing controversial in that, and it follows that there can be nothing paranoiac in wanting to rein in the beast a little. Let’s just see if it really is all it is cracked up to be. At any rate, as Aaronovitch acknowledges, there is a potential threat to biodiversity – although, strangely, he thinks that isn’t ‘scary enough’. I’d say that the prospect of uncontrollable changes to our biosphere caused by minute mutations in crop genes is a terrifying one, and not one to be taken lightly.

And the Greens, too, blame the government for being in hock to the food lobby, and therefore making large numbers of Britons obese. Well, suppose that the government is in fact doing things which assist the food companies and simultaneously encourage the consumption of fatty foods? Like, say, the Sports Minister trumpeting the virtues of a chocolate bar scheme which will gain a basketball for every school that has one or two plump kids prepared to chow their way through several hundred Snickers? Would that add any force to the suggestion?

At any rate, this all seems rather bizarre and outlandish - until you realise where the bodies are buried. To explain - one of the things I have been taught about how to read a text including any kind of argument is to treat it like a murder case. In any murder case, much of the evidence only begins to make sense once you have located the body. The “body”, in this case, is the thesis. Aaronovitch’s thesis is that things aren’t really as bad as everyone makes out, that there is too much axe-grinding in the media which makes it appear that Britain is basically dysfunctional when its actually a-okay and getting better. “We in the media,” he says, have been telling people that it’s all to cock, and “when it’s all to cock you need a strong hand to fix things”. This last sentence brings us back to the fascist end of the political spectrum, unless Aaronovitch is suggesting that Caroline Lucas is about to form street gangs to go out and smash up supermarkets that sell GM food. And indeed, there is a sense in which the more apocalyptic tones of the hard right press are conducive to the agenda of fascism and reactionary populism.

The trouble, however, is this: why should people suddenly be so susceptible to this kind of carping? If everything is okay, and getting better, why are people so inclined to believe those parties who assert that the state of the country – indeed, the world – is fundamentally wrong? The question-begging suggestion that it is all because of the way the media paints things only pushes us back to the same question – why should people believe them? Could it be, David, that people are responding to the real crises in society in various ways? For example, perhaps the trains and hospitals and schools really are as bad as people say they are. Certainly, Aaronovitch would argue that piles of “dosh”, as he prefers to call it, has been deposited into all of the public services – but the sad reality is that much of it is plugging a gap created by New Labour’s first term. At any rate, a vast amount of it is being wasted on PFI schemes, which are in fact many, many times more costly than usual hospital building or renovation programmes. And this points to another problem. PFI schemes and the PPP on the tube are deeply unpopular. Not just unpopular in the sense that Noel Edmonds is unpopular – actually, factually disdained by a whopping majority of the electorate. When Blair announced that his big policy initiative in the 2001 election would be the acceleration of PFI schemes, polls showed that 81% of the public disapproved of this. But no one listened, and no one is listening now when people say they don’t want a failing, Thatcherite Central Bank to control interest rates, or an unelected European commission to make decisions about the economy, or some stability pact signed without public consultation to tell governments how much they may spend on public services. The fact that immigration suddenly became a hot political potato again around 1999 isn’t just a matter of press hysteria – it is also partially the attitude of people who feel there isn’t enough to go around, that things are tight enough as it is and getting worse. It is also to do with racism, of course – but racism does not arise ex nihilo. The cuts in social security, declining job security, increasing inequality , poverty , a perceptible rise in the rate of British military interventions, more privatisation , housing sell-offs which cost the public purse millions, the degradation of national politics into slanging matches between two indistinguishable main parties – these are the things which are driving up the vote for parties which are not of the mainstream. But there is a crucial difference between parties of the radical Left and those of the far right – the latter exhort you merely to follow, while the former exhort you to lead.

Polly Toynbee’s contribution is a variation on an increasingly standard line on the Blairite front. First of all, no one wants "regime change", merely a "wind change". Or, as Martin Kettle argued so unpersuasively yesterday, a "different kind of Blair" . ("It requires a subtle and unpartisan brain to make sense of many of the contours of last week's elections," he told us. The self-congratulation of liberals is rarely this pronounced). "More of the same will not do", Toynbee sternly lectures, before offering her suggestion as to what the Prime Minister must do, and what he must never do ever again. First, he’s got to stop talking about "radical reform" of the public services – not because the reforms in question are crackpot schemes inherited from the Tories, much derided by New Labour in opposition, but because it gives the impression that there is something radically wrong, in need of reform: "The truth is good and getting better by the month. So why can’t Blair get it out there?" Because you’re talking bollocks, Polly.

Blair, says Polly, should cease talking about ‘choice’ and ‘personalisation’ as if the NHS and schools were consumerist institutions. Instead, the message should be reiterated – Labour is for public services, the Tories are for privatisation, outsourcing etc. This would be a more impressive point if Labour was actually opposed to privatisation, outsourcing etc., but it no longer is. Toynbee’s next recommendation is that the feud between No 10 and No 11 end forthwith. No more briefing and backstabbing, no more Mandelson hovering about in the dank corridors of Millbank and Whitehall. Stop pissing off core voters and big up the respect to all the schools and hospitals for the improving results that we are seeing. Make some kind of visionary promise to wet the electoral palate. Something distinctly juicy and red-blooded and Labour.

And that exhausts her analysis. The problem for the liberal critics, as so often, is with the presentation and not the substance. Criticism which transcends these boundaries is immoderate, redolent of awkward squad mischief. Why, if only the Prime Minister would stop under-selling his achievements! But Toynbee would have to be slightly adrift from reality not to realise that every piece of election literature, and every announcement from New Labour about hospitals and schools has some enormous puff about the latest figures from Ofsted or whomever. It isn’t that the Prime Minister is under-selling himself, it is that no one will buy. Why? Because, once again, we want public services and he wants PFI schemes and he just doesn’t listen. We want a publicly owned railway and tube system, and he doesn’t. We want better union rights, and he doesn’t. We want a more meliorative foreign policy, and he doesn’t. We want redistribution of wealth, pensions linked to earnings, less indirect tax on the poor and more direct tax on the rich – and he doesn’t. The values of Tony Blair are not those of the electorate, a reality he has been spared by the absence of a reasonable alternative. He thought he had us over a barrel; he thought that we would have to vote for him or else the Tories would return. Tough lesson from these elections? People are no longer accepting this kind of emotional blackmail. The Labour Party has surrendered its quiddity, so the unions are beginning to reclaim their quids. And we are reclaiming our votes.

The liberals mewling about language and presentation are merely preserving face as the body politic decomposes.

9:31:00 pm | Permalink | Comments thread | | Print | Digg | del.icio.us | reddit | StumbleUpon | diigo it Tweet| Share| Flattr this

Search via Google

Info

Richard Seymour

Richard Seymour's Wiki

Richard Seymour: information and contact

Richard Seymour's agent

RSS

Twitter

Tumblr

Pinterest

Academia

Storify

Donate

corbyn_9781784785314-max_221-32100507bd25b752de8c389f93cd0bb4

Against Austerity cover

Subscription options

Flattr this

Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Recent Posts

Subscribe to Lenin's Tomb
Email:

Lenosphere

Archives

September 2001

June 2003

July 2003

August 2003

September 2003

October 2003

November 2003

December 2003

January 2004

February 2004

March 2004

April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

July 2015

August 2015

September 2015

October 2015

December 2015

March 2016

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

April 2017

May 2017

June 2017

July 2017

August 2017

Dossiers

Hurricane Katrina Dossier

Suicide Bombing Dossier

Iraqi Resistance Dossier

Haiti Dossier

Christopher Hitchens Dossier

Organic Intellectuals

Michael Rosen

Left Flank

Necessary Agitation

China Miéville

Je Est Un Autre

Verso

Doug Henwood

Michael Lavalette

Entschindet und Vergeht

The Mustard Seed

Solomon's Minefield

3arabawy

Sursock

Left Now

Le Poireau Rouge

Complex System of Pipes

Le Colonel Chabert [see archives]

K-Punk

Faithful to the Line

Jews Sans Frontieres

Institute for Conjunctural Research

The Proles

Infinite Thought

Critical Montages

A Gauche

Histologion

Wat Tyler

Ken McLeod

Unrepentant Marxist

John Molyneux

Rastî

Obsolete

Bureau of Counterpropaganda

Prisoner of Starvation

Kotaji

Through The Scary Door

Historical Materialism

1820

General, Your Tank is a Powerful Vehicle

Fruits of our Labour

Left I on the News

Organized Rage

Another Green World

Climate and Capitalism

The View From Steeltown

Long Sunday

Anti-dialectics

Empire Watch [archives]

Killing Time [archives]

Ob Fusc [archives]

Apostate Windbag [archives]

Alphonse [archives]

Dead Men Left [dead, man left]

Bat [archives]

Bionic Octopus [archives]

Keeping the Rabble in Line [archives]

Cliffism [archives]

Antiwar

Antiwar.com

Antiwar.blog

Osama Saeed

Dahr Jamail

Angry Arab

Desert Peace

Abu Aardvark

Juan Cole

Baghdad Burning

Collective Lounge

Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation

Unfair Witness [archive]

Iraq Occupation & Resistance Report [archive]

Socialism

Socialist Workers Party

Socialist Aotearoa

Globalise Resistance

Red Pepper

Marxists

New Left Review

Socialist Review

Socialist Worker

World Socialist Website

Left Turn

Noam Chomsky

South Africa Keep Left

Monthly Review

Morning Star

Radical Philosophy

Blogger
blog comments powered by Disqus