Where Does Miliband Stand On The Future Of Capitalism?

In making his speech to Google yesterday and as part of his advocacy of "responsible capitalism", Ed Miliband made the following statement as a means of distancing his views from those of his Marxist father, Ralph Miliband. Democratic Socialists don't have to be Marxists to the extent that Ralph was in order to be deeply disturbed about the nature of Ed's brief argument.

His father, he said, "thought that the route to a fair society was not through capitalism but through socialism based on public ownership. It wasn't just my dad who thought it, of course. Until 1995 this view was enshrined on the membership card of the party I now lead. Tony Blair got rid of it and rightly so, because nationalising the major industries is not the route to a fair society."

A problem with this argument is that Ed does not distinguish nationalisation from other possible forms of public ownership. If he feels that it is public ownership itself which is problematic, what does he feel should happen to the remains of our public services in areas such as the NHS, the Royal Mail, the Armed Forces and in the remnants our post-war school system? If Ed sees the future economic pattern as one that should be dominated by "responsible capitalism", then is there a limit to his vision? Or has the "inevitability of gradualness" which Sidney Webb saw as being associated with the advance of public services, now been transferred to the growth of Ed's favoured form of responsible capitalism? Does he want more capitalism or less?

There are many possible forms of non-capitalist economic and social structures - including co-operatives, worker-controlled firms, voluntary bodies, services by local authorities, public services and nationalised firms (whose operations could be democratised to overcome any problems which arose from the model pursued by Labour immediately after the Second World War). These all need forms of regulation and patterns of worker and consumer involvement - which (at the least) is what  Ed will need in his efforts to make capitalism act responsibly. For I assume that he knows that preaching is not enough to get exploitive and corrupt capitalism to behave reasonably. Of course, even if we can find some nice cuddley capitalists, these will not be able to ignore the logic of the market in which there are pressures to purchase in the cheapest market (whether for raw materials, technological improvement, or for labour costs) and to sell in the dearest market (via cheap transport, advertising and other marketing techniques).

When Tony Blair came along with his vision of New Labour, many in the Labour Party went along with him thinking it was only a gimmick to ensure the return of a Labour Government. They soon learnt that this was not the case, although far too many Labour activists then just accepted what they were given. Is the same pattern happening under Ed?  Perhaps his "One Nation Labour" owes far more to the ideas of Benjamin Disraeli than is being assumed. Is Labour now being re-shaped to seek  to do no more than tackle what Ted Heath called the "unacceptable face of capitalism"? At the best, Labour would then be aiming to become a non-Thatcherite version of the Conservative Party. But Labour would then be the descendants of Disreali and not of Keir Hardie. It would be much better to have a modern varient of the views of the latter, than of the former.

 

The Pain Of McCain

Perhaps I am becoming an old cynic, but the BBC's current euphoria over the election of Barack Obama reminds me of its 1997 enthusiasm over the election of Tony Blair. But I do have higher hopes for Barack.

For one thing, he will be obliged to shift US foreign policy. For otherwise he will come to be known as Barack O'Bomber.

My interest in John McCain (above) is that he is my age. This means, of course, that we have always been the same age. So I can follow the dramatic events in his life and remember the more mundane things I was doing when he was going through the traumas of being a POW or was engaged in the excitements of his high level political career in the USA. (I was, however, around 38 days before he was born. But I don't remember that much. It might, however, give me the edge on gravitas.)

What can he now do? Well like all of us at 72, he can keep on reminiscing. Better still, he could get himself a personal blog and click into my comment box now and again.

Latest Blairite Plot

Which Government Minister is involved? Trawl down here for clues.

The Turbulent Twins

Tony and Gordon In The Eyes of Capitalism.
Alan Greenspan was the head of the Federal Reserve in America from 1987 to 2006. He was the crown prince of world capitalism. He has written a book entitled "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" (Allen Lane 2008).

Below I give an extract from a review of his book by Prem Sikka which appeared in Tribune. His quote from Greenspan's book confirms what democratic socialists knew all along.

"Greenspan was a key player in the expansion of Reaganomics and the rolling back of the state...He praises Thatcherite economic policies and offers his evaluation of former Prime Minister Tony Blair and present Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Referring to a meeting in 1994 he says: "It appeared to me that Brown was the senior person. Blair stayed in the background while Brown did most of the talking about New Labour. Gone were the socialist tenets of postwar Labour leaders...Brown espoused globalisation and free markets and did not seem to be interested in reversing much of what Thatcher had changed in Britain. The fact that he and Blair had arrived at the doorstep of a renowned defender of capitalism (namely, me) solidified my impression"

New Catholicism?

Catholics will need to keep an eye on their new convert Tony Blair, in case he attempts to follow his main achievement in the Labour Party - the subversion of its ideology.

Howard, Bush And Blair

I have never met nor even seen the recently departed Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard. I understand, however, that he was at the front of the public gallery in the Commons and saw the exchange I give below between myself and Tony Blair during Prime Minsters Questions on 7 May 2003. This was just seven weeks after the invasion of Iraq.

Tom Clarke M.P. was sat a distance from me and was looking up and observing John Howard's reactions at the time. Afterwards he told me that Howard had an expression of disgust on his face when Tony Blair made sympathetic noises towards the developing Trade Union Movement in Iraq.

Even George Bush made a double edged commitment to "free labor unions" for the Middle East in his 2004 State of the Union address, when he said -

I will send you a proposal to double the budget of the National Endowment for Democracy, and to focus its new work on the development of free elections, and free markets, free press, and free labor unions in the Middle East. And above all, we will finish the historic work of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, so those nations can light the way for others, and help transform a troubled part of the world. (Applause.)

All that can be said in favour of Howard's reactions in the Commons that day was that, at least, he was being honest about his feelings. How far can the same be said about the reactions of Blair and Bush?


Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): The Prime Minister will be aware that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has issued an appeal to the International Labour Organisation and to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions to involve themselves in the creation of a democratic trade union movement in Iraq. Will he have words with President Bush to establish that the President also presses for this, and supports the development of a labour movement as part of the democratic movement in Iraq?

The Prime Minister: One of the great advantages of the liberation of Iraq is that the people there should be able to enjoy the same human rights as people enjoy in other countries that have a greater history of democracy and representative government. One of those essential freedoms and rights is the right to be a member of a trade union, and I have no doubt at all that that will form part of the dispensation in the new Iraq that is being created.

13 Wasted Years

In The Beginning

Few of those who voted for Tony Blair in the Labour Leadership contest of 1994 knew or cared about his New Labour project. It was sufficient for the centre and right-wing of the Party that he was presentable and would not rock the boat as far as the electorate was concerned. After all, Labour had been in the wilderness since 1979.

Moderate labourites preferred Tony to John Prescott and Margaret Beckett who at that time both had an appeal for the left and centre-left of the Party.

The New Labour project was, however, to go way beyond moderate labourism. It was to nurture and develop the greater freedoms of the market introduced by Margaret Thatcher, whilst looking for schemes to redirect some of the newly created wealth towards socially desirable ends such as new schools, shorter hospital waiting lists and more job opportunities. Although it was occurring in a new historical context, New Labourism reflected the very norms of Lib-Labism which Keir Hardie and others had fought against when helping to establish the Labour Party itself.

Out Of The Blocks

Tony's first move to break Labour's mould came with his proposal to change Clause 4 of the Labour Party's Constitution, with its commitment to public ownership. Instead, Labour was now to be an advocate of a "dynamic economy" - an Aesopism for Capitalism.

He was now ready to make his appeal for Middle-England (meaning Middle Class) votes. Given the mess the Conservatives had got themselves into, Labour were almost bound to win the 1997 election. Tony's New Labourism was, however, structured to usher in a landslide.

He was now in control of the shop. The norms of full discussions and limited compromises in Cabinet meetings ended. The new wave of Labour MPs tended to be ultra-loyal, hoping that this would ensure their future re-election. The Constitution of the Labour Party was further changed so that the rank and file would find it almost impossible to work out how policies could be changed.

Many left and labourite activists began to re-examine their commitment to Labour. New Labour recruits were attracted in their place, whilst numbers of moderate labourites jumped onto Tony's successful bandwagon.

New Labour Survives A Blip

It isn't easy, however, to drum labourism (and even residual socialism) out of the Labour Party altogether. And immediately after the 2001 election, Tony was placed on the back foot. Although his approach had helped to deliver a second landslide electoral victory, the numbers turning out to vote collapsed. It was now a landslide victory by default. The Conservatives were still in a mess, whilst the past appeal of New Labour to Middle England was on the wane.

At the first meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party(PLP) after the election, Tony expected gratitude for holding onto the gains of 1997, but what he found was criticism from many of his past loyalists. A shift of direction was now being looked for towards better Party and PLP democracy, in order to alter some of the norms of New Labourism.

An uncomfortable Labour Party Conference was on the horizon, with the Trade Unions both reflecting and influencing the new mood of assertiveness amongst back-bench Labour MPs.

But Tony was then saved by what became his eventual downfall - the consequences of the 11 September attack on the Twin Towers. The Labour Party Conference was truncated and uncomfortable issues sidelined. Tony was now tucked in with the Bush Administration in America, leading to the fateful decision to join in the invasion of Iraq. He increasingly played the role of the National Statesman and was ready to use the votes of Conservative MPs to override the dissident views of increasing numbers of his own back-benchers.

His luck held when few of his Cabinet took the line of Robin Cook and resigned. It was mainly left to the back-benchers to rebel on their own, which they did in increasing numbers in the 2001-5 Parliament compared to that of 1997-2001.

What About Tony's Positive Achievements?

It is, of course, possible to draw up a list of substantial Labour achievements for the past 10 years. But there is a peculiarity about most of these.

Apart from items such as the introduction of the principles of the minimum wage and the praise I lavished on Tony yesterday on Northern Ireland, most of his Government's achievements have to be qualified.*

So that whilst disposable income has substantially improved, so have inequalities. Whilst University education has expanded, so has student debt. Whilst employment opportunities have risen, so has the closure of manufacturing industries. Whilst pensioners can often travel more widely with free bus passes, so workers are more often obliged to travel to work for lower paid and temporary employment. Whilst there has been a devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and now Northern Ireland, local authority functions has been taken away and centralised.

Almost every plus has its associated minuses. Then there are the pure negatives such as the culture of spin. The destruction of the old public service ethos. The downgrading of the role of Parliament (despite allowing a vote on the invasion of Iraq). And the failure to prevent "cash for honours".

The invasion of Iraq was the leading error, even though we can't just now stand back and refuse to offer help in overcoming its consequences.

Whither New Labour?

Will Tony's legacy be to leave us with a New Labour Philosophy? There is no reason to believe that there will be a change of tack from the centre under Gordon Brown, as he has been the economic arm of delivering the New Labour agenda. His clash with Tony has only been over pelf and place.

I have regularly spelt out why I think that Peter Hain should stand for Leader and not Deputy. He can't win, but he is capable of launching a feasible democratic socialist programme for change. But he now only has about 24 hours left in which to make this move. When this doesn't happen, I will have to come out in favour of John McDonnell who will (if he gets the nominations) be the only socialist in the game - surely it won't be Michael Meacher. I will then back Peter for Deputy in the hope that after a likely 2009/10 General Election defeat under Gordon, he will move in to seek to pick up the pieces. Yet he would be in a better position to do this if he stood for Leader now (and lost). We need a champion for now and not tomorrow or Labour Membership and support will go even further down the drain.

An Added Note, 11 May.

* = At this point I should have given a recognition to the important initiatives he took in seeking to tackle poverty in Africa, writing off certain third world debts, in tackling climate change and in moving forward on disability legislation. He could always, of course, have gone further on these and I was particularly frustrated by his unwillingness to advocate an international tax on currency speculation - known as the Tobin Tax. But at least on these matters, he headed in a very different direction to both Bush and the previous Conservative Government.

In Praise Of Tony Blair

Admiration From A Rebel

I have never been New Labour. I disobeyed the Labour Whips 11.4% of the time in the 2001-5 Parliament. Yet I am full of admiration for the role Tony Blair has played in a matter which was always at the top of my political agenda in my period as an M.P. - the search for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland (NI).

I know that many others played their part, but a great deal of credit goes to Tony for the stage we have now reached.

Will Republicans Let It Work?

Sinn Fein (SF) have moved to a position where their whole future rests upon their making the new NI Executive work (or, at least, they must not be seen to be guilty if it collapses).

To start with, they can not return to the armed struggle without now looking like Al-Qaeda. They would then be finished as a Political Party who are dependent on significant electoral support.

Yet they have a political project open to them which will be greatly enhanced if they can contribute significantly to the success of the new NI set-up. If peace, prosperity and cross-border trade boom, then SF's electoral standing in the Irish Republic could grow significantly. For SF are firmly and traditionally an all-Ireland Party.

SF have a great deal to gain if they can help the NI Executive to function, but they will be struggling to hold onto what they now have if they are seen to let it fail. For the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) is waiting in the wings to re-capture its former support amongst Catholics if things go wrong for SF.

Will Unionists Let It Work?

Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) have an image of intransigence. But they can claim that this has been intransigence for a purpose and that it has succeeded.

In legal terms, Northern Ireland is still firmly part of the United Kingdom. The arms formerly used by the Provisional IRA have effectively been decommissioned. It is SF that is obliged to participate in a NI Executive and not the DUP that has been forced into a United Ireland. SF has also accepted the general role of the Police Force in NI.

With what the DUP feels are its major guarantees in place, it has then become possible for it to play the leading role in the NI Executive by taking the posts of First Minister and Finance Minister.

Strong differences will remain between the DUP and SF, but these will be in areas which are the normal give and take of the parliamentary game. Hard fought compromises can be reached in areas such as education, agriculture and the environment. For all such compromises by their nature are temporary and changes can always be pressed for in the future.

I have observed three of the DUP's four new Ministers in action in the official and unofficial avenues of the Commons and believe them to be clear as to what they are up to. They feel that their intransigence has worked satisfactorily, so they now have a framework in which a more normal form of politics can work.

They also know that if they blow it, Reg Empey's Ulster Unionist Party might then reclaim sufficient votes from Protestants to take over the DUP's leading role.

Building The Current Framework

There was no inevitability about us reaching the current position in NI politics. Without a great deal of patience and skillful manoeuvring we would not have the current hopes. The first NI Minister to find a formula to draw SF into the thought of involvement was a Conservative, Peter Brooke. Whilst the Republic of Ireland, the USA and others played important roles. But there was no more important actor in all this than Tony and the use he made of a series of dedicated Labour Minister's in the Northern Ireland Office - including Peter Mandelson (whom I never otherwise have a good word for.)

None of us have any right to criticise our departing Prime Minister, unless we first of all acknowledge this great success.