Seamus Milne has argued in the Guardian this morning that:
For the past fortnight the Labour leader has faced a barrage of open or thinly coded attacks from Blairite zombies and former allies alike: from shadow cabinet ministers such as Jim Murphy to the maverick peer Maurice Glasman and a string of MPs, ex-ministers and long-forgotten New Labour advisers.
The common themes were the need to get serious about cuts, the danger of tax-and-spend, and Miliband's "anti-business rhetoric": the fixations of New Labour die-hards.
Seamus is right. I don't want to make this personal, and a such don't like Milne's description of those on the right of Labour as zombies, but clear red water had to be drawn on this issue.
The reality is that those leading this attack on Ed Miliband - for that is what it is - are wedded to the neoliberal culture and all that goes with it. Take my former TUC colleague Adam Lent, who is one of those on this right wing of Labour. He said of Ed Miliband's speech yesterday:
The examples he gave though — reversing the cut in corporation tax and keeping the 50p tax rate — come straight from Labour's comfort zone. The reality is if Labour is serious about a major shift in spending priorities to promote jobs, growth and inherent fairness in the economy, then the party will almost certainly have to face up to the need to save money in the big spending areas of welfare, health, and pensions.
This is not the talk of a person from the centre left, as Lent and those like him in the Policy Network and Progress (which calls itself "the New Labour pressure group which aims to promote a radical and progressive politics for the 21st century", which really says it all) like to brand themselves. This is the talk of the centre right. And this is the talk of this who believe in "fiscal conservatism" (Lent's own phrase) which otherwise means "severe cuts in welfare, health and pensions".
Labour cannot and must not be party to such decisions. Most especially they must not be so when the likes of Lent want to use the cuts to fund job creation in the private sector. If he hadn't noticed it the private sector is enjoying a massively increased share of GDP right now, has near record rates of return and is sitting in a cash mountain it has no idea what to do with - which is why it's lending it to the government. Maybe he hasn't read Martin Wolf persistently pointing out all these facts, but facts they are. The private sector needs no cash to generate jobs; it has all the cash it needs and more besides. What it does not have is the will or the demand for what it might make to persuade it to invest. That's what's missing and cutting welfare, pensions and healthcare can only make the creation of that demand so much harder given the propensity of those on welfare, pensions and with ill health to consume.
I'd rather hope Lent and his fiends have also read this, in the Guardian this week by nurse Christie Watson. It was aimed at Cameron, but since these New Labourites are well to the right of Cameron it is as relevant for them. She said:
On the few occasions that I've worked on a care of the elderly ward I have not had that time [to care for patients]. There was usually a fairly newly qualified staff nurse in charge, and a health care assistant. And 32 beds. It was impossible. We worked a 13-hour day with no time for breaks. Many of the patients were incontinent. People were left in wet or soiled beds while we prioritised patients who had suddenly deteriorated. There was no chance to think about dignity or nutrition — things that nurses value so highly. It was heartbreaking. I felt so sorry for our patients. The standard of care we were able to give was terrible. These elderly patients deserved the very best of nursing, but it was a miracle that they were simply alive at the end of the shift.
We were forced to make some terrible choices, and to have to make such decisions on a day-to-day basis is beyond my capabilities. I've experienced how awful it feels to see a loved one suffer due to poor nursing care. The nurses I worked with wanted to care — there were simply not enough of them to be able to do the job properly. I have so much admiration for the nurses who work in those areas and manage to give good — even adequate care — with such inadequate levels of staffing.
This, I know, is happening. This is why doctors are now prescribing water for their patients. And this is not just happening in hospitals. It is happening in care homes where the amount being paid by local authorities is not now enough to ensure people are looked after with even a because respect for their dignity, needs or right to be treated as a person. As one doctor put it to me recently, they're now increasingly sure that people are now dying in the UK of thirst simply because no one has time to check they have had a drink.
This is the Tory and New Labour precxription for the elderly of the UK.
Read the Guardian today on welfare reform and you'll realise that the prescription of New Labour and the Tories is to cast millions of the least able to protect themselves and their children adrift and into deep poverty.
Read Richard Horton of the Lancet today and you'll see why there is no private sector alternative that can work on these issues: it could only make things much, much worse.
Miliband, if he is to match the mood of the country, has to say no to these cuts. He has to do so for all who are Labour. He has to do more than that. He has to say no for everyone, even if they are misguided enough to believe in these cuts now.
And he has to say no becasue we can afford to look after our elderly.
We can pay benefits. We do not need to leave people starving, homeless, in despair, sick and disabled and without protection.
We're a society that can afford to emply some of the 2.5 million without work in caring.
And we can redistribute to meet need.
But we have New Labour saying we can't do that. We have them saying such redistribution to relieve need and poverty would be wrong and that we should support the private sector that already has all the resources it needs to create jobs that will enrich the 1% more than anyone who gets a job.
That's not social democracy. that's market orthodoxy. And Labour should be nowhere near it. And it needs to say so. Now. And it needs to say to those who do not agree that Labour's not on their wavelength. Now.
PS I'll explain the economics of why I'm right in the next day or so - I'm working on it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Not sure I’d class Glasman as neo-liberal Richard – I see his critique as precisely in this vein, that New Labour caved in to neo-liberal orthodoxy to the detriment of ordinary people who Labour were supposed to be helping.
That was a really lovely rant, Richard. I’ve posted it on my FaceBook wall and sent it to the chair of my CLP.
Me too, Carol – though it went to the Secretary of my CLP.
I am the secretary of my CLP!
Richard, I quite agree. I think Miliband needs to sharpen his political vision and improve his communication; but his problem is certainly not that he’s not neo-liberal enough.
Carol, I’ve just posted you a membership form so I can join the Labour Land Campaign. Hopefully I can be of help pushing for a radical, redistributive alternative to the current neo-liberal orthodoxy.
Perhaps we should view the Blairites as the new Militant in the Labour Party and they must not be allowed to continue to actively criticise the current leadership. This is pure self indulgence by people who do not really care about the lives or prospects of the majority of ordinary people in this country. Criticism of the leadership should be made in the appropriate place and that is NOT any vehicle of the rightwing press.
The only difference between Militant and New Labour is that Militant was never a real threat but a useful distraction in the re-positioning of the LP to the right… the beginnings of New Labour’s take-over.
There is another reason why Ed M is so susceptible to attack.
To be a leader you need not only to be saying something inspiring, you need the delivery of what you say to be inspiring. Unfortunately for Labour, in my view Ed M comes across as being the most uninspiring, uncharismatic, unenthusiastic and unengaged leader of recent times. He could have the best message of all the leaders to tell (although in fact he doesn’t), but presentation is equally important, especially today.
This was most clearly shown in the amazing battery-operated-robot-parrot response of Ed M to 6 different questions on the public sector strikes by the same answer “the strikes are wrong when negotiations are underway, the government has acted in a reckless and provocative manner and both sides need to set aside the rhetoric and get around the negotiating table to stop this happening again”.
Anyone watching that would assume the man has no brain, or is under the complete control of his PR minders — neither being attributes worthy of leadership of the main opposition party, let alone a country.
About the only noteworthy thing Ed M has done recently is to phone the truly appalling Diane Abbot during her TV interview to get her to apologise.
As a dead man walking, the zombie term is most appropriate for him.
During the leadership hustings I challenged Labour members to consider the prospect of Ed being interviewed by Paxman. Well, I haven’t seen that yet but on yesterday’s Radio 4 Today programme his bumbling interview was horrible to listen to. Contrast Rachel Reeves’ interview on Newsnight.
And as for Diane Abbott. A good leader would have supported her instead of insisting on an apology. She spoke the simple truth. How on earth could her comment be compared with ‘black’ racism? I’ve never heard such rubbish from an awful lot of people who should know better.
Roger… I’ve had a gut full of charismatic, pretty politicians. I would much prefer an Attlee-type who quietly pushed through the radical changes that the UK urgently needs, particularly on climate change and tackling peak oil.
Ed M is under enormous pressure and wrong-footing from journalists (like showing that loop you mention) . Over the last 3 weeks, the only vaguely left paper the Guardian, has done little but brief against Ed M (notable exceptions like Polly Toynbee and Seumas Milne). The media as well as the BBC, do nothing but showcase the failed politics and politicians from New Labour. He has decided to keep his enemies close by putting them in the Shadow Cabinet which has the advantage of avoiding some of the plotting but fails to give him any public show of backing and then there is the inevitable muddle about conflicting policy directions. Under the circumstances, I’d say he was doing better than could be expected.
I totally agree with Richard and Seumas Milne, the Blairite zombies have to be taken on. They are not representative of the grassroots LP, and as Kelvin Hopkins MP and Steve Norris, have argued since before 1997, they are to the right of many in the Conservative Party.
IMO if Ed M argued for the sort of measures proposed by Richard’s Courageous State, nef, Michael Meacher et al, there would be huge support from the Don’t Knows and the broad left. Some of the all-time most popular posts on Think Left website, cover the re-nationalisation (or democratic ownership) of the Railways, water, energy and libraries… none of which strike me as being wildly ‘charismatic’ exciting new policies.
Let’s face it, the Parliamentary Labour Party does not represent the views of the ordinary members. My CLP are thoroughly fed up with them. Since we’re in true blue Tory land we have no say in selecting our MP, but neither it seems do members in the Labour heartland. EdM was a shoo-in, as were most of those elected in the last couple of decades.
I might be wrong but I suspect that what’s really needed is a new, grassroots political movement. Both parties are just 2 heads of the same monster. Not just in Britain, but in most of the Western world – it’s certainly the case in Australia and the U.S..
To put your hopes in Miliband is like those who put their hopes in Obama – ill-fated.
The party system (and unfortunately a good part of the media)has been effectively hijacked by the private sector. And because they control the media they can manipulate public opinion and move pieces (candidates) they want – just have a look at the charade in the U.S. primaries.
Gerald Celente some 2 years ago said that what was needed was a revolution – not a bloody one but an intellectual one – because it was just about impossible to reform the institutions from within.
I don’t believe Miliband is the answer. Even if he takes up the cause, it will only be until he reaches government, and therein lies our problem. If we have democracy only at the polling booths, we have no democracy at all.
Anthony, what would you suggest as an alternative to the current party system?
Hi JJ,
I would say firstly the Occupy movement, something that Celente had predicted back in the late 90’s, could play a role. It’s very difficult for the elites to get a grapple-hold on this Occupy movement as it has no discernable leadership, headquarters, etc. Also we could see groups such as AVAAZ play a more prominent role.
Secondly a move to Direct Democracy around the world, also a trend predicted by Celente. Direct democracy works very well in Switzerland. I see no reason why it can’t work as well in larger countries, with the use of the Internet.
I also feel any movement needs an intellectual base and independent media. Independent media sources on the internet are growing and the use of social networking to keep people up-to-date is also playing a part. As for the intellectual base, I feel that this is where people like Richard are playing a big part.
And further to my earlier comments, check out the latest issue of the Trends Journal (winter 2012, vol XX, No.29), as it covers many of the points I raised.
You’re right to demand we move on from Blairite ideology but I don’t think there is any such conspiracy. Alastair Campbell’s latest blog post throws some serious doubt on Seamus Milne’s assumptions:
http://tinyurl.com/85oermx
And you but the evidence of the #1 Blairite?
You take Campbell’s evidence seriously?
He’s another case of keeping enemies nearby I’d say
Thank you, Richard, for writing this necessary article. The title especially is excellent!
Very briefly : in life, you can’t reason with people who are unreasonable.
Sadly, it isn’t possible to appease those who are on the right wing of the party; attempted appeasement only serves to embolden them (they feel they’re “winning” and they push harder for all that they want). Appeasement can only work leftwards by appealing to rational intellect.
Those on Labour’s emotionally-driven right wing are dominated by their own fears & negativities, and won’t willingly accept anything which is outside their comfort zone. Therefore they resort to denial of truth and inversion of reality, and they seek to label the Labour movement’s core values, beliefs & principles as merely the intellectually-orientated left wing’s “comfort zone”.
Fighting disability Cuts are trying to raise funds to fight. They have £4,000 plus so far. one can donate through Gofundme. Readers might care to help.
Ed Miliband doesn’t seem to have any intention of straying that far from the neo-liberal line in any case.
Witness his speech that argued for “savings” in the UK economy and “difficult decisions” that need to be taken…..difficult decisions that always seem to effect most those who are most vunerable in society and strangely not those who could well afford to be heavily taxed, for some reason.
No talk of Green QE, national investment banks, higher taxarion on higher earners or big taxes on the super profits of the private utilities or the massive profits of corporations like Tesco. No talk of reigning in the banks and financial sectors with stringent regulation and a Financial Transaction Tax, or, for that matter, capital controls and big investment in council housing, transport and infrastructure.
Ed Miliband and the Blairites….. I wouldn’t put a fag paper between them, quite frankly!
From the ground: You won’t get a left-wing government elected.
It won’t happen.
Take a left-winger; Bob Crow.
In ten years time, with another Conservative government, his underground workers will find themselves driving driverless trains (that’s the drivers, the other underground workers will have been thinned-out very considerably by then)
The other train drivers will find themselves not benefiting from the recruitment drive to get more drivers, and with longer trains, since many will chose to not be in a union and more drivers doesn’t mean more trouble it means less trouble.
There are only two ‘papers supporting Labour, and one of them is practically readerless and looks to be soon out of business. The others would support a tory party led by a paedophile.
While Ms Abbott may well have not been racist, the point is being missed: She gets up peoples noses, along with Harriet Harman. And quite frankly, there are too many loose cannons in Labour, and they spend most of their time shooting themselves in the foot.
You may compare them with the”warring” coalition, but come the next election the Lib-Dems are going to bomb. Their ex-supporters are not going to vote Labour.
And while Mr E Milliband plays catch-up politics his party looks like spending the next 50 years doing nothing. And if the Scots go native that’ll be forty-odd Labour MP’s gone for the loss of one Conservative. Now…why would the Tories be winding the Scots up with insisting on Referendum terms….hmmmmmm….then there are the boundary changes coming along…..
I doubt many will agree with me, but I see no hope for Labour with the current inactive leader.
I think Ed’s policy agenda has been, at best, a very mild leftward shift from Blairism. However, it is nonetheless true that there is an ideological battle going on for the soul of the Labour party. The policy prescriptions are seeing from the Labour hard right at the moment are not Blairite, but in fact considerably to the right of Blairism, or anything New Labour produced.
The central contention of the hard right is that on every policy, Labour should either (a) become an exact clone of the Conservative party, or preferably (b) outflank them from the right. It’s not compromise, it’s total surrender. That’s why Ed has to be defended against the hard right at all costs; not because he is the great white hope for the Labour left – in all probability he isn’t – but because if he’s replaced there will be nothing left of the Labour party at all except a right-wing variant of the Tory party. (Of course, the Green Party will be very pleased about such a prospect as it would leave them as the only left-of-centre party…)
Our Labour branch are holding a meeting on Wednesday to discuss our dissatisfaction. There’s a lot of it about. We’re a close-knit family down here in dark blue toryland. I can see us grouping together and escalating this concern up to regional level.
Howard I absolutely agree with you about the battle within the Labour Party. This is probably just as big a battle as the one in the 1980s but of course the economic circumstances are rather different. We have to tame casino capitalism otherwise we will have between 5 and 7 million unemployed and frankly we will resemble many third world countries where ’employment’ is in the informal sector and tax collection is virtually non existent.
I am not sure that I have confidence in the likes of Rachel Reeves to change the policy course of the party as I think she worked in the Treasury and surely that is a bastion of neoliberalism.
Labour realises that the UK electorate will not vote for a “proper” left wing party, so they have to adapt to if they want to be in power. As it seems that all politicians these days just crave power, and don’t have any regard to their political beliefs, it is not surprising to see Labour shift to the right.
And once Labour loses 40 odd seats in Scotland, the party may as well just give up.
What’s wrong is that Labour would be elected if left wing
Do you have evidence to support that claim? If you look at so many different areas the evidence is points completely the other way.
I think that it would be good to have a decent left wing party, to counterbalance the right, but I don’t think British people (and the British culture) would support this.
Not what I see, hear and think
But of course ou would say otherwise
As do the press
So why don’t “proper’ left parties do well in elections? Why did labour have to move to the right to get elected with Blair?
I’m sorry but I’m afraid that one point is being missed in all this name calling. My whatever means (ideally through growth) there needs to be a coherent plan for the reduction of the defict. It really isn’t sustainable for any givernement to run deficits of 10%+ of GDP per annum for other than short periods (I can see the necessity of doing so at present) in any reasonably open market economy. The public can see this and unless Labour has a credible plan for deficit reduction it will not be listened to in any debate. By the time of the next election, my guess is that the Tories plan for the reduction of the deficit will also be seen as demonstably incoherent as well – but that doesn’t mean that Labour will win by default.
The only way to clear the deficit is to get people to work
There is literally no other way
It is impossible to do it by cutting as all the people cut are still here and have no jobs to go to becasue the state is the biggest customer of the private sector
So the only viable deficit reduction plan is full employment
I show that is only possible by increasing the share of state spending in GDP
And paying for it with tax, of course
I don’t disagree about getting people back to work or that this will not be achieved by cuts in public expenditure – but you appear to be arguing for an increase in public spending and an even larger increase in taxation – and I just cannot see how the figures add up so as to reduce a defict equal to 10% of GDP. There just has to be some genuine growth in the economy – and you need a strategy to make that happen.
Growth only works when there are people at work paying VAT and income tax
Growth per se is irrelevant
It’s the type of growth that matters – and growth in employment is what is needed to clear the deficit. Nothing else will
Richard, I work and live with manual workers.
My sons do the same.
If Labour moves to the left they will collect less votes.
Blair positioned himself, and Labour, exactly right (no pun) for the time/s.
Which is where the coalition government is now, after Gordon brown moved the perception of Labour to the left.
I don’t expect you to agree, but time will tell.
Let’s disagree!