[Peace-discuss] Labour's predictable debacle

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Watching "New Labour" has been like watching the DNC Democrats through 
the looking-glass.  --CGE]

   Britain: The denouement looms for Labour
   By Chris Marsden 
   3 October 2009

This was the week that the Labour Party simply died of shame.
Labour’s Brighton conference venue was rarely more than half full, even for 
party leader and Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s keynote speech billed as his 
“fighting comeback.” Most of the time there was a sea of empty chairs. 
Delegates either did not attend the conference at all, or stayed in nearby bars 
drowning their sorrows. Those that did take their seats had the appearance of 
the walking dead in a George A. Romero movie—shambling around a cavernous 
hall without thought, giving only an appearance of the conscious activity of the 
living.
The week’s events began with a declaration to the Observer by Chancellor 
Alistair Darling that the party looked like it had “lost the will to live.” On the 
evening it began, the election results in Germany came through, with the Social 
Democrats polling just 23 percent, recording their worst result since World War 
II.
The significance of this electoral debacle was all too predictably not discussed 
at Brighton, but was noted by the right-wing Labourite Denis MacShane.
“The demise of Germany’s left wing reflects an existential crisis across Europe 
that Labour should be mindful of this week,” he wrote in the Guardian.
MacShane acknowledged in passing that it was primarily because “Working 
class wages were held down as employers and unions collaborated to 
strengthen the capital base of industrial firms” that “Workers not unreasonably 
turned away from supporting the SPD ministers who thus cut their purchasing 
power.”
This was the picture across Europe, he made clear. The crisis of German social 
democracy “joins that in France, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands and most of 
east Europe where the classic 20th century forms of democratic left politics can 
no longer command electoral majorities,” he continued, and is “now facing its 
most testing time since social democratic, socialist and Labour parties were 
founded more than a century ago.”
In truth the social democrats internationally, and Labour above all, have already 
failed this test. Far from being of the “left,” they are fervent advocates of the 
policies of “neo-liberalism” and directly associated with the parasitic, 
speculative practices that brought the world economy to the point of collapse.
So far to the right has Labour shifted that Business Secretary Peter Mandelson 
was chosen to rally the party for the upcoming general election next year. This 
is the man most closely associated with “New Labour” and the party’s 
repudiation of its reformist programme, the friend of various Russian oligarchs. 
It was he that proclaimed he was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy 
rich.” He was the subject of Tony Blair’s famous 1996 dictum that the “New 
Labour project” would only be complete when the party “learned to love Peter 
Mandelson.”
The standing ovations he received were proof that what little remains of the 
party is so politically corrupt that it is not only ready to love him, but is 
deluded enough to believe he can lead an electoral charge. “If I can come back, 
we can come back,” he insisted.
When Brown himself took to the stage, he attempted the impossible task of 
dressing up Labour as a “left” alternative to the free-market ideology of the 
Conservatives.
He portrayed his multibillion rescue package for Britain’s bankers as a 
benevolent action to prevent “a great depression with millions of people’s jobs 
and homes and savings at risk.” He chastised David Cameron and the Tories, 
insisting that “what let the world down last autumn was not just bankrupt 
institutions but a bankrupt ideology. What failed was the Conservative idea that 
markets always self-correct but never self-destruct. What failed was the right-
wing fundamentalism that says you just leave everything to the market and 
says that free markets should not just be free but values free.”
This was followed by pledges to uphold traditional “middle class” and “working 
class” values, “the values of the mainstream majority.” These included a 
commitment to free education and universal health care, a pledge that Labour 
would “not allow those on middle and modest incomes to be buffeted about in 
a storm not of their making,” “raise tax at the very top,” “toughen the rules on 
those who break the rules”—above all bank directors—and ensure that “the 
banks will pay back the British people.”
Most ludicrous of all was his declaration, “I say to you today; markets need 
morals.”
This attempt at populism then took on a pronounced right-wing tenor, with 
“law-and-order pledges” to clamp down on anti-social behaviour, force all 16- 
and 17-year-old single mothers to be placed in “supervised homes,” put “every 
one of the 50,000 most chaotic families” on a “family intervention project—
with clear rules, and clear punishments if they don’t stick to them” and “never 
allow teenage tearaways or anybody else to turn our town centres into no-go 
areas at nighttimes.”
His last such pledge was to clamp down on immigration, by taking “a tough 
approach to who gets to come to our country and who gets to stay,” while 
tightening up “our points-based immigration system” to ensure “that those 
who have the skills that can help Britain will be welcomed, and those who do 
not, will be refused.”
Brown’s attempt to appeal to all men failed to convince anyone. No worker who 
has lived through three terms of Labour in office could possibly swallow such a 
pathetic attempt to portray the party as an opponent of the free market. 
Everyone knows that Labour is already planning massive and sustained cuts in 
the public sector that will slash wages, gut services and cost millions their jobs 
and livelihoods. He even highlighted Labour’s “deficit reduction plan to cut the 
deficit in half over four years,” stating that this would “be made law in a new 
fiscal responsibility act.” This would mean Labour would “cut costs, have 
realistic public sector pay settlements, make savings we know we can.”
Brown’s “caring” rhetoric is also beyond the pale for its former big business 
backers, who will tolerate no ambiguity on the necessity for a sustained 
offensive to force working people to pay for the worsening economic crisis. 
Rupert Murdoch’s the Sun headlined its withdrawal of support for Labour on 
the day of Brown’s speech “Labour’s lost it,” in order to inflict maximum 
damage.
Its embrace of Blair in 1997 was a signal of the party’s success in securing the 
support of the financial elite for its Thatcherite policies of deregulation and 
privatisation. Now, the Murdoch media empire has concluded that it must throw 
everything behind Cameron to give his party some sort of mandate for 
imposing an austerity programme on a scale without historical precedent.
The Sun editorialized that it had backed New Labour in 1997 because it had 
been “shorn of its destructive hard-Left doctrines.” But Labour had still “blown” 
billions “employing a useless layer of public service middle-managers,” 
“making benefits more lucrative than a pay cheque” and “creating a huge, idle 
underclass for whom work is a dirty word.”
Now was the time when Britain needed a Tory government to restore “our 
natural entrepreneurship and the will of every family to improve its lot through 
its own efforts, without depending on handouts,” “cut the red tape strangling 
businesses,” make “affordable tax cuts,” “reform wasteful public services,” 
combined with “a genuine will to win the war in Afghanistan”.
Labour was forced to put on a brave face to counter Murdoch’s attack. But 
behind the scenes it will move heaven and earth to convince him and the social 
layer he speaks for that it remains the best vehicle for imposing the measures 
being demanded against the working class—including if necessary offering 
Brown’s head as proof of intent.
Brown is trying to save Labour’s political hide by seeking a pact with the Liberal 
Democrats, offering a referendum on electoral reform and some form of 
proportional representation instead of Britain’s first-past-the-post system. But 
most of all Labour relies on the support of the trade union bureaucracy to sell 
the party as the only alternative to “ideologically driven” cuts under the 
Conservatives.
Unite joint general secretary Tony Woodley pathetically ripped-up a copy of the 
Sun like a lover betrayed, while praising Brown for speaking of “the values that 
are true to Labour.” The GMB’s Paul Kenny said that Brown’s “was the speech of 
a prime minister who intends to take the fight to the Tories,” while UNISON 
general secretary Dave Prentis said that he had “definitely set out clear red 
water between Labour and the Tories.”
For their part, the Socialist Workers Party, Britain’s largest petty bourgeois left 
group, insisted, “The fact that Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats are 
all united in demanding spending cuts adds to a general assumption that all 
the main parties are essentially the same. But for all its crimes, Labour is not 
the same as the Tories.”
“Talk of the ‘death of Labour’ is premature,” it insisted, “even if a Tory 
government is elected. The party could revive as a symbol of opposition and 
could even shift its rhetoric to the left. For people who are shocked by the 
scale of Tory cuts, Labour could become a beacon of hope, even if it maintains 
its right-wing policies.”
Any such reliance on Labour as a “lesser evil” would only disarm working 
people. Labour is a right-wing capitalist party and must be replaced by a 
genuine socialist party to take forward the political and economic struggle 
against all the representatives of big business to the end.
Copyright © 1998-2009 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/labo-o03.shtml