I am not sure if 'The Last Turkey' overlord allows us to make more serious comments about politcs but....what the heck is going on in the Labour Party? The title of this links you to David Miliband's seemingly innocuous article in the Guardian about where Labour should go from their current position. Boringly vacuous, it is apparently a declaration of war on Gordon Brown according to various political commentators.
As other pour over the hidden messages, I think there's another lesson to be taken from the sheer tedium of the article and the fact that it shows almost no original thinking whatsoever. The truth is that even in a crisis the lack of a political ideology behind New Labour shines through. Because we are all capitalists now Labour has nothing to fall back on; no certainties that it can be sure of; no intellectual tenets that they can always grasp at and Miliband's sorry excuse for an action plan is crucial evidence of that. The commentators may talk about whether or not Miliband will challenge Brown as leader but I think we are way past that. Miliband probably will be the next Labour leader and sooner rather than later but he is unlikely to be anymore popular than Gordon Brown while he is uncapable of having a personal ideology. A vague commitment to social justice, as Tony Blair discovered, isn't really enough.
But then is it really Miliband's fault that he stands for nothing - in a society where capitalism and democracy are accepted and now embeded as the status quo, what else is there to change?
PS Listen to Miliband on line if you can. If he's not doing an impression of Tony Blair, then it's bloody weird.
5 comments:
I think you are being a little unfair and partisan here. The lack of a so called original thinking could be leveled just the same way at David Cameron and indeed at Barack Obama.
This speech was a deliberate rallying call - whether he was rallying the party around him or his leader is very much up to debate - the timing suggests it was mischievous at the very least.
When you look at Obama's speech in Berlin he said very little of real substance but he was setting out a vision and that could be easily latched on to without spelling out the how or in some cases the what.
It was Labour's so called Third Way, combining a social agenda with economic freedom, is exactly what kept Blair in power for 10 years. It is also what may well propel Obama in to power in the US. Eco-centric politics is no longer enough to win the hearts and mind of the electorate, which is why David Cameron is basing his charge for No.10 on socio-centric issues whilst still exposing the weaknesses in the economy.
In short, it is us the electorate who demands what our MPs stand for and right now that is centre ground politics. Whoever controls the centre ground will be in No.10 and, like it or not, that does not allow room for idealogical politics and relies far more on rhetoric and and gesture politics.
James, I think you give yourself away at the end with your comment on rhetoric and gesture politics which is all that is left for New Labour. Because the Reagan/Thatcher era succeeded so completely in destroying socialism as a political dogma, the Labour Party were left without any ideology at all. Does anyone except Skinner and Benn believe that the means of prodcution should be in the hands of the State? The right haven't had their roots cut away in the same way not least because the core of the Conservative Party has always been economic and not social - because they won the battle of ideas, the Conservatives can carry on cementing that victory.
Let me give you a comparison - it's possible to argue that the third term of Thatcher was her most radical. Can we even begin to suggest the same of Labour. No. Any why? Because there's nothing to be radical about. The economic arguments - which is where poltical radicalism begins and end - were won years ago and that victory destroyed, wait for it, Labour's ideology which was proved to be profoundly defunct.
I think I can wrap this up pretty simply: you say that at the heart of the Third Way is a "social agenda with economic freedom". Which politicians aside from Hitler and Stalin and Kim Jong-Il would be barmy enough to claim that they were striving for something else?
I am not defending Labour, I am just saying that the same criticism can be levelled at the Tories. But who are we to blame the politicians when it is us who demands this type of politics. Why take a risk by moving to idealogical politics when it is clear that centre ground parties are election winning parties.
Rhetoric and gesture politics is all that is left of New Labour and it is all that is left of the Tories too.
That does not mean to say nothing can be achieved by them, I believe that Labour achieved much in their first two terms despite the many speeches by Blair that were lacking in substance but we vastly rescued by style.
To put it another way, what do the Tories now stand for? Cameron is no Thatcher. As Miliband said, Thatcher was a radical, not a conservative and that Cameron is quite the reverse. he doesn't have a thirst for change. He does not offer the vision or hope that Blair offered in the mid-1990s. In hindsight you can argue that Blair do not live up to his potential, but his thinking was more advanced that either of out two main party leaders is now.
I do not dispute that Labour has completely lost it's way in its third term. But I also do not see what the Tories have to offer in terms of alternatives other than a more charismatic leader. Though, this just maybe enough to appease the voters.
To tackle your last point - the shift from eco-centric to socia-centric is more subtle than you make out. Of course all governments strive towards a including both elements in their agendas, but the emphasis now lies more on social policy for the Tories than it did pre-1997. You could argue that biggest change Labour has had on UK politics is to change the Tory party.
You can post on whatever you want!