Labour's election strategy: back to the future. posted by Richard Seymour

The self-confidence of the Blairite circle-jerkers within the New Labour elite has been battered and bruised for the last two or three years, at least. New Labour retains a substantial lead over the Conservatives, depending which poll you take. However, the Prime Minister's approval rating is in minus figures ( -12% ). Support for the war has plummetted ( 38% ). Yet, they seem to have little to offer but more of the same, then blaming the victims. The warnings from the likes of Robin Cook that the government needs to define itself as a more left-of-centre party is are unlikely to be heeded and don't have the kind of backing that could force an agenda. I have argued for some time that the Labour party has become a different organisation. Its membership is disproportionately middle-class, and there is no indication that they are about to buck the leadership.

Consider the 2003 party conference, the one held just after the biggest protest movement in British history filled central London:

Judy Cox reported:

"They gave health minister John Reid a standing ovation when he told them he wanted for the NHS exactly what Margaret Thatcher had wanted.

They got up again for the despicable David Blunkett when he banged on about crime and asylum seekers.

It seemed that no violation of labour movement traditions, from any cabinet minister, could stop them clapping."

"Party fixers or small numbers of hardcore Blairites could not have bullied all these delegates to their feet. Their applause was genuine." ( Judy Cox , Socialist Worker, 11th October, 2003).

In the minutiae of detail, too, the Labour activists aligned themselves with Tony Blair. Nick Cohen bitterly reported:

"Activists from constituency Labour parties usually backed Blair by a majority of three-to-one. The majority never fell below two-to-one, however contentious the issue. From now on when the whips confront a rebellious Labour backbencher, they will be able to tell him he isn't standing up for his local party workers but flying in the face of their express wishes." (Nick Cohen, The Observer, October 12th, 2003).

So, the approach to the upcoming election is hardly different than it was almost eight years ago. The new slogan: "forward, not back" . Tony Blair doesn't have a reverse gear (unless it takes him back to Gladstone or the Old Testament). Alan Milburn, who is running the campaign, knows what's wrong with New Labour's record:

Mr Milburn, presenting private polling yesterday to the cabinet, admitted that many voters are angry about the government's record on violent crime, anti-social behaviour and asylum.

This recalls the Prime Minister's famous 'leaked memo' , in which he revealed his Tory predilections:

On asylum, we need to be highlighting removals and decisions plus if the April figures show a reduction, then a downward trend. Also if the benefits bill really starts to fall, that should be highlighted also...

On crime, we need to highlight the tough measures: compulsory tests for drugs before bail; the PIU (Performance Innovation Unit) report on the confiscation of assets; the extra number of burglars jailed under the "three strikes and you're out"...

We should think now of an initiative, eg locking up street muggers. Something tough, with immediate bite which sends a message through the system.

Maybe, the driving licence penalty for young offenders. But this should be done soon and I, personally, should be associated with it...

On the family, we need two or three eye-catching initiatives that are entirely conventional in terms of their attitude to the family. Despite the rubbish about gay couples, the adoption issue worked well. We need more. I should be personally associated with as much of this as possible.

Yet, there should be no surprise in this as much of it was advertised in advance. To get a sense of the arrogance and Whiggish sympathies of the Blairites, have a look at Labour's 1997 election manifesto . The couching of conservative policies in the language of the left is only half the story. What is more striking is just how much of the Tory language New Labour accepted. In fact, you cannot understand the purbling pursuit of unpopular, costly and inefficient policies like PFI , Almos , tuition fees and so on unless you realise just how ideological New Labour is about its acceptance of rightist claims about the efficiency of the private sector etc. This is more obvious when you look at the full-frontal assault on the firefighters when the "overwhelming majority of the public" backed the strike . The decision to abandon the Dockers (500 Livepool dockers were sacked for refusing to cross a picket-line in 1995, and subsequently embarked on a series of protests and flying pickets which gained widespread international support) is another such example: the government was the majority stakeholder in the shipping company Torside and could easily have reinstated the men. Take a look at Labour's 1997 manifesto, and you have the reason why: "we make it clear that there will be no return to flying pickets, secondary action, strikes with no ballots or the trade union law of the 1970s".

Of course, there was a convenient myth about the 1997 elections, which sometimes persists today: Labour won because of its right-wing policies and jazzy new image. In fact, polls at the time showed that on most crucial issues, the public - especially the Labour voting public - were well to the left of new Labour. For example, 70% of British people said they believed the unions were too weak; between 70 and 80% believed that the railways should be renationalised; 43% of voters and 61% of Labour voters said that there should be socialist planning in the economy; 76% polled said that there was a class struggle in Britain. Now, the axis of politicisation has shifted from domestic policy to foreign policy, but it isn't the case that one has obliterated the other. The unions' high standing in public opinion remains, and their involvement in the antiwar movement can only have helped that. During the firefighters' strike, it was speculated that the government would be unable to go to war on Iraq if the strike was prolonged. Indeed, while Alan Milburn can only see a cluster of overlapping issues on the right which possibly threaten new Labour's vote, there is discernible a clear left-wing body of opinion in which the issues of opposition to the war and to privatisation, anti-racism, support for civil liberties and support for the unions are vital. The lacklustre Blairite campaign means there is a vacuum to the left of the political spectrum.

Hence, Respect .