I have written, or at least quoted, today about the need for trade unions and what trade union thinking might deliver for an economic recovery. But as everyone knows, it is the relationship between Labour and the trade unions that matters right now.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - and so it could be said that this is not my business. But to say that an observer cannot comment on an issue would be to deny the freedom of speech, so I will continue by suggesting that much of the commentary I have read on this issue seems to almost entirely miss the point about the debate that is needed on this issue. The discussion has been on rule changes, voting arrangements and funding. And yet all those are actually mere sidelines. What is under debate here, seems to me, to be whether the Labour Party is to represent the interests of ordinary people or not and how.
If there are three themes to this blog they are that a bias to the poor is a necessary policy objective of any government; that ensuring that all pay their fair share of tax is essential of a just society is to be created and that fiscal policy (which, remember, embraces both revenue and spending) is a key component of any government's economic strategy. I cannot and do not speak for any union, but I think these ideas are reflected in many union's thinking. They are not ideas embraced by many, but not all, on the front bench of the Labour Party. And it is these economic differences that are at the core of what is happening between the unions and Labour.
The fact is that the unions, like very many in this country, are alienated from the politics that is being presented to them by all the major political parties. This is unsurprising. That politics is neoliberal. It has a fundamental bias to wealth - and the purchasing power of the wealthy - inherent in it. It biases towards monetary policy, whose fundamental aim is to maintain the value of money owned by the best off, and it has created a system where there is nothing approaching a progressive tax system and where redistribution is limited. And people - vast numbers of people - are fed up with the resulting mantra that says they don't count and must be sacrificed to the markets.
My suspicion - no more- is that it is this that is behind Unite's strategy. No they don't want more people who will impose austerity on their members. Be candid, why should they? And those on the right of Labour who are dedicated to a vision of the world that is based on the myth of market based solutions (a myth because the reality has never delivered on all the claims made) are fighting this on the basis of rule abuse - when the whole neoliberal economic system is an abuse of the idea of social justice.
Now this could, of course, be resolved. And that is the most likely outcome. The alternative is that it is not and Labour splits. I see that as possible too. There could be a new party on the left (the obvious name is The Left, as in France (even if, somehow it sounds better in French). That wold be worrying but for one thing, and that is that UKIP still has the chance to split the Tories. Of course, the prospect of another term in office might unite the Conservative Party - but around what? They can hardly agree on anything. If that's the case then a Labour split may not be so odd - it would effectively be happening on the right and left at the same time.
And what then? A coalition after the next election? Or a government of a tiny minority? Would that deliver an 'Arab spiring' effect - demanding new and fair elections?
I don't known the answer to these questions. But I am quite sure now that we are watching the death throes of political structures that cannot serve the 21st century. That makes this an exciting, and dangerous time. But it is one where ordinary people and their very real needs have to be represented and unless Labour does that then it is at real risk.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
I don’t think there needs to be a new party – the Green party seems to fulfill the objectives.
I have geen wondering if ‘party politics’ is really nessessary. Why dont we choose 500 people by lottery and set them to ‘manage’ what is happening. Give them free rein to request advice and make lobbying illegal. Bribery could be classified as Treason. The poition could be held for no more than three years. by the nature of things the 1% would not be an overwhelming majority. I am quite sure somone could refine the general idea in to a working model and maybe we could actually have CIVIL servants again instead of serfs in fear of their livelihood.
The notion of representation on something of a “jury system” is not new and it is called “sortition”. Like all proposed systems it has its problems, but nevertheless I find it an attractive option. It is perhaps not surprising that it is seldom seriously discussed, because it has the potential to reduce or abolish the power of lobbyists. Some thoughts on the system are here
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/matt-hall/sorting-out-sortition
I am somewhat disturbed at present because I see a lot of people making some plea for a new party (not least on this board) on the grounds that (I paraphrase) old categories of left and right are no longer applicable. I seldom see any argument which supports this proposition, and I have a somewhat knee jerk resistance to it simply because it is often a cry of the far right: it was a plank of Mussolini’s platform and also of Hitler’s. It was also a major part of Tony Blair’s faction’s position when they hijacked the labour party: at least as I see it his argument was for a third way. The third way was “not right, not left”; but right. It is ever thus.
it is not enough to dismiss an analysis on the grounds of antiquity: the two times table is not modern at all, but that doesn’t make it wrong. If we genuinely have a new situation such that there is no opposition between the interests of those who own capital and those who do not I would like to see that demonstrated. If it cannot be shown then there is no basis for the idea that the left/right split has no traction any more. It serves the interests of the elite very well to pretend we are all on the same side, but it happens not to be true and they never forget that, so far as I can see.
Fiona- I think you are oversimplifying things here – there are many on the so called right in America who are as concerned about the anti-democratic effects of the corporate world sucking wealth out of communities as you are. Blair’s Third Way nonsense was more Neo-liberal oligarchy and as a result they happily presided over a housing bubble and bank collapse that the poor are paying for. Many considered on the right are as concerned about this as the left. I come from a left background but am beginning to think that we need to think out of this box and to share ideas.
Someone did refine it, his name was Jean-Jacques Rousseaau and it’s all in his ‘The Social Contract’
Indeed
We need an occupy the City event as a starter – though I imagine Teresa may’s water cannons might be tested out at that point.
We need an occupy the City event as a starter – though I imagine Teresa may’s water cannons might be tested out at that point.
‘The fact is that the unions, like very many in this country, are alienated from the politics that is being presented to them by all the major political parties. This is unsurprising. That politics is neoliberal.’ How very true.
Tony Blair said that the divide was between those who believed in ‘the wisdom of the markets’ and those who saw a role for the state (probably the only time that I’ve ever agreed with something Tony Blair said). The problem is that all three parties comprise both groups.. and their basic assumptions are irreconcilable. Hence, the death throes and factional in-fighting.
However, this raises the question as to the function of party politics for neoliberals because patently ‘democracy/the will of the people’ is impossible to reconcile with preserving unimpeded markets. Therefore, the function of the tory modernisers, the orange-bookers and the blairites must be to dismantle not only the state but also any vestiges of democracy… which again we can see in the alienation from ordinary people, grass-roots members, the unions and the leadership of the three parties but is also demonstrated by the US-EU FTA which is intended to circumvent governments with a Corporate tribunal capable of changing domestic legislation on employment/environmental protection, in the name of ‘liberalisation’.
There needs to be a realignment along ideological grounds. Frankly, the One-Nation Tory has more in common with Real Labour than with the Tory modernisers. Equally, the Blairites, Clegg, Cameron and Osborne are all out of the same pod. The electorate has effectively been conned over the last 30y into thinking that they were voting for three different parties because regardless of which way they voted, the fundamental policies hardly varied. Neoliberals or neofeudalists had no problem with this because a disillusioned electorate automatically undermines democracy and any faith in action by the state.
Essentially, all three parties have been subject to a heist by those who have a ‘fundamental bias to the wealthy’. Understandably that had to be, because it is almost impossible to imagine that the overwhelming majority of people would have voted for any party that openly acknowledged such a bias… hence, the pre-existing parties have all been parasitised at the top. Thus, the flames of Ed Miliband’s current difficulties with Unite are being fanned and compounded by the Labour neoliberal right because the Blairites would rather see another Tory government in 2015 than lose control of the Labour Party. (Mandelson said in 2010 that the LP should form a new centre party with the LDs which could be a ‘permanent majority’. Clegg betrayed their agreement then but doubtless the plan is in place for 2015. Needless to say, there would be no room for the left or the unions in such a ‘centre left’ party.)
I completely agree that ‘ordinary people and their very real needs have to be represented and unless Labour does that then it is at real risk’. We all deserve better than the current battles of the ‘elites’ for power but which offer little or nothing of benefit to ordinary people in any of their economic, social or environmental policies.
“Neoliberals or neofeudalists had no problem with this because a disillusioned electorate automatically undermines democracy and any faith in action by the state.”
Excellently put syzgysue. Why the hell doesn’t Labour stand up for itself and point out the utter cant, humbug and hypocrisy of the right when it comes to party funding? The Tories and UKIP are are both mostly funded by financial interests in the City, who will only ever push the neoliberal/neofeudalist line.
Richard – it might be the time to dissolve the right/left paradigm which has become a false opposition and plays into the neo-lib propaganda machine. massive reforms to banking and th corporate sector are needed. WE could start with:
1) splitting up banks and ending fractional reserve banking
2) Banks must have local, geographical significance like credit unions.
3) perhaps a return to local currencies which would ensure proper circulation of wealth (Bristol Pound!)
4) No more speculation by banks in real estate and stable house prices.
5) End shareholder greed.
6) Get rid of a stock exchange that has no relevance to 90% of the population and causes price fixing.
7) Create a bank of England which works for the whole country rather than oligarchy.
8) Work for an economy of full employment and zero growth.
I would vote for this party! This would inaugurate real free enterprise which circulates wealth and creates jobs. It needn’t all come from big government.
So you want to return to the gold standard, is that right? You want to abolish national currency? Or is it to be used for some transactions and not others? How are we to travel abroad or buy goods from abroad with local currencies? Do you not think that the transaction costs would lead to abuse and speculative attacks on particular currencies? How are those to be avoided? How on earth are you going to abolish greed? If there is no stock exchage presumably funding for investment is to come from bank lending? How are these small banks you envisage going to go about that while at the same time preventing them from “speculating2 in real estate etc? I see you still have a role for a central bank: what is that role?
I am not saying you are wrong, I am just asking you to flesh out your programme because at present I do not understand what you think is wrong with current arrangements nor how these proposals are going to solve them
Fiona – I’ no expert ion these matters, just in the process of trying to make sense of these things! The Gold Standard is often associated with being the cause of the Great Depression ( which according to Galbraith would have gone on and on had there not been WWII) so other approaches will be needed. Speculation will only stop when the mores of our culture see its real harm -just as the present Govt has disgracefully vilified those on benefits so we need a Government that vilifies those that cause poverty. The New Economics Forum wants a central Bank that controls and disincentivies socially damaging speculation but at present the tail wags the dog. The present system is really working like a form of self harm where one form of economic activity causes harm somewhere else and this will not change until we see ourselves as part of the same ‘body’ – signs are not hopeful. But I also think the left/right paradigm might need to be moved away from so we can see the problem more clearly. I’m still trying to learn and many on this site have much greater knowledge than me! Change will take a lot of good will and co-operation, I’m not sure people can do this at present.
It’s simple to stop ‘speculation in real-estate’: remove the speculative element, land, via taxation.
This solution is still all about banks and money.
I would vote for a party that will bring back the NHS so I can trust my GP to do what’s best for me rather than his bank balance.
The NHA or the Green Party would suit me.
@Simon. I know little about Ron Paul but it was my understanding that he is a proponent of the Gold Standard and is in favour of Austrian economics. If you honestly believe that is a third way which will achieve what you say you want I sugggest you read a little about Austrian economics. I think they are pretty much woo merchants.
Have you considered my proposition that those who promote a third way, or the abolition of a left/right split tend to be fascists? They are very good at presenting very old ideas as if they are offering something new and inclusive: then they gas those who disagree with them.
Fiona,
I agree, one has to be careful here, I’m just aware that the left’s interests in social justice do overlap with aspects of the so-called free marketers. I don’t think we should dismiss the possibility of a freemarket working for reasonable social ends with root and branch reform of banking. People like Karl Denninger who founded the Tea Party, then left it when it was taken over by Republicans wants to remove housing from the speculators portfolios – I’m happy to look at their ideas. And in this country Tories like Douglass Carswell have shared common ground with John McDonell of the left of the Labour party on issues about banking reform. There might be the posibility of a new party that explode the left/right paradime. Not all the free marketers are neo-liberals – they want to see capital circulating and creating jobs rather than debt peonage. The Labout party is finished, so we need to look at new possibilities.