IT HAS been a tough few weeks, observes Ed Balls (page 11). He’s right about that, and in his prediction that it will get tougher. With Labour MPs, including those among the amorphous group generally referred to as “Brownites”, muttering darkly that Gordon “doesn’t get it” and Blairite ex-ministers calling semi-publicly, like Charles Clarke, or in whispered huddles, for a change of leadership to save a fourth Labour term, the mood could hardly be worse. A looming tragedy is topped by the farce of Digby Jones, a Government minister, declaring that he will not be supporting the Government at the next general election. Of course he won’t, he’s a Tory. The ridicule that Gordon Brown’s Government-of-all-the-talents stunt has attracted is not only well deserved but serves as a comical totem for an administration which is, in its outreach, wanting to be all things to all people while losing its footing in the party values it was elected to protect and promote. That applies equally to the uncomfortable mix of ministers whom Mr Brown, whether from indecision, fear or weakness, has seen fit to include in his Government – the back-to-the-future band headed by Business Secretary John Hutton and James Purnell.
Mr Brown was always going to have a difficult job successfully piloting the change-with-continuity model through the choppy straits between Tony Blair’s administration and his own, long-awaited takeover. The trouble is, there is not enough change and too much continuity. And the current mood among those described by Mr Balls as “the false prophets and siren voices who talk the language of defeat” is indeed moving to the point where meltdown cannot be averted.
Tribune does not believe the situation is irretrievable. Our concern is that Mr Brown and his inner circle are unprepared to do what it takes to effect a turnaround. Mr Balls, characteristically, makes a powerful case in favour of the Government’s past and continued proficiency in handling the economy and rightly underscores the reality that the Tories have not established themselves in the public confidence a better potential economically. But he is off the mark if he believes the current woes are the result of mid-term blues. Just as Mr Purnell was off the planet when he said that Labour is now “ideologically neutral”. Interestingly, Mr Balls argues that “successful governing parties must remain ideologically united”. Time for Mr Purnell to bail out?
As Nick Toms powerfully argues (pages 12-13), ideology is not about dogma, but it is essential in guiding political intent, to provide an alternative vision to a prevailing economic and social structure which inherently disadvantages working people and their dependents who constitute the majority of the world’s population.
It is possible, if not probable, that the Government will weather the economic turbulence ahead without suffering the full wrath of an electorate which attaches much of the blame to external, that is, global, factors rather than incompetence. But Mr Balls – and in this we can assume he is close to the Prime Minister’s thinking – is defending the wrong net by attaching so singly a link between the economic climate and the Government’s present troubles. A more profoundly deeper problem is that the Government has veered off Labour’s ideological compass, or what Mr Brown used to refer to as the Government’s “moral compass”, to the extent that some MPs have eschewed the Government brand on the doorstep because it is a voter turn-off. An ideological vacuum has been created in which people are confused and disillusioned about what the Government stands for. And if its actions and intentions are listed it is easy to see why. Inheritance tax, the abolition of the 10p rate, failure to act on non-doms, a boom based on cheap credit, the Private Finance Initiative (what one commentator dubbed this week as a “giant mortgage on the nation”, tens of millions for Northern Rock but a pittance for Farepak’s poorer shareholders, the shutting of “uneconomic” post offices, national identity cards and 42-day detention without trial, the disdainful squeezing of the public sector and the veneration of corporate interests.
This is not the ideology of a Labour administration but of one that has come to accept and champion that of a dominant ruling economic force which offers greater inequality, social divide, a wider wealth gap and a grim future for cohesion in society and humanity. It is time now, rather than after an election defeat, to break with the market-obsessed, neo-liberal agenda that has been the “new” Labour hallmark.
About The Author
