If any more nails are inserted into Tony Blair’s coffin there will not
be any room left for the corpse, and room must be left not only for the
prime minister, but also for the entire body of Blairism and the New
Labour project to transform Labour into another bosses’ party.
Sacked Home Secretary Charles Clarke has attempted to emulate Geoffrey
Howe’s role in speeding up the prime minister’s departure with a
scathing attack on his lack of direction and purpose. It seems the
Blairites want to copy their Tory masters in the ‘men in dark suits’
department, too.
According to the latest polls, Labour now trails the Tories even on
health and education. Blair has managed to turn the NHS into a vote
loser for Labour! This is a remarkable achievement indeed. In the
Blaenau Gwent by-election (caused by the death of Peter Law, a former
Labour member who had stood against Blairism) Blair’s candidate
signally failed to win back the seat, while in Bromley they staggered
in fourth behind the UK Independence Party.
The much vaunted ‘smooth transition’ from Blair to Brown would not
imply any policy change whatsoever. The privatisation of public
services, the promotion of ‘flexible’ labour and rejection of trade
union rights, and the massive extension of means testing are all
policies that have been promoted by Brown. Consequently, Blair’s
replacement by Brown would propel Labour further along the course to
losing the next election.
For fear that Blair leaving next summer will leave too long for Brown
to be exposed as no more than Blair Mark Two, there has been talk from
the Brown camp of calling a snap election, to ride a ‘wave of
popularity’ (i.e. a wave of not being Blair). Rupert Murdoch has
intervened to warn that his media empire may well back Cameron’s Tories
in the event. Murdoch and co. do not decide who wins elections despite
their own inflated views. However, their change of policy reflects
something more profound.
As we have pointed out previously the capitalist class are more than
happy with the way Blair and Brown have represented their interests.
However, having squeezed the life out of Labour they are now ready to
discard the empty husk. They have no problem with Brown – the myth that
he was somehow to the left of Blair has all but evaporated. They do,
however, have a problem with the mounting opposition on the
backbenches, and, even worse, over their shoulders the growing
opposition of the trade unions and the working class to their policies.
A Brown Labour government could not be relied upon as a solid enough
base to push through the attacks on the welfare state, and on jobs,
pensions, wages and conditions that enfeebled British capitalism
requires to maintain its profits. As a result Murdoch and co will soon
reflect the wishes of the ruling class and revert once more to
supporting the bosses’ first eleven, the Tory Party.
Labour’s slide in the polls is not the inevitable consequence of the
‘electoral cycle’ as the Blairites like to claim. Instead it represents
a profound disappointment and disillusionment with Labour in office on
everything from the war in Iraq, to attacks on pensions, and
privatisation in health and education. Therefore, it stands to reason
that for Labour to recover in the polls it must abandon these
capitalist policies and begin to act in the interests of the working
class. It is self-evident that Brown intends to do no such thing. The
left must stand against him. A candidate should oppose Brown on the
basis of a socialist programme. A socialist candidate who opposes the
war in Iraq, who opposes privatisation and calls for the railways,
water and all utilities to be brought back into public ownership, would
find a ready echo amongst the rank and file of the party and the unions.
The idea of a handover – with no election – that Blair and Brown had
imagined is clearly now dead in the water. There is a rising tide of
opposition to Brown’s succession.
What an ideal opportunity to raise socialist policies throughout the
labour movement! The left now needs a credible candidate. Not someone
who is credible in the eyes of the media, however, or the city of
London, but credible in the eyes of the labour movement and in relation
to the needs of the working class. What is decisive then is policy. The
forthcoming National Conference of the Labour Representation Committee
would be an ideal springboard for a campaign in the unions and amongst
Labour’s rank and file for a candidate committed to socialist policies.
Such a campaign would breathe new life into the comatose body that the
Labour Party has become under the Blairites.
Michael Meacher has apparently declared that he would like to stand. As
a former minister in Blair’s government he is somewhat tarnished.
Although Meacher would be seen as a relatively ‘left’ opposition to
Brown, the most important question is what programme would he stand on?
Although he has voted against compulsory Identity Cards and some of
Blair’s attacks on civil liberties, Meacher voted for the invasion of
Iraq and has voted in favour (and abstained) on foundation hospitals.
What is required is a socialist candidate. The chair of the Socialist
Campaign Group of MPs, John McDonnell, would represent a far bolder
opposition to Blairism. He is also the chair of the LRC, and the Public
Services Not Private Profit trade union grouping that organised the
recent successful lobby of parliament. In addition, he has been at the
forefront of building Hands Off Venezuela. There is a groundswell of
support building for such a candidate now in the unions and in the
party.
The end of Blairism is drawing ever nearer. Whatever the immediate
outcome of a leadership election – Brown would still be favourite to
win – a new period of life and debate can be opened up throughout the
labour movement.
The pendulum of history, which had moved a long way to the right under
Blair, Brown and co, is beginning once more to move in the opposite
direction. Marxism must play its full part in the coming struggle for
socialist policies throughout the labour movement.
