A government in freefall

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to lose one minister, Mr Brown, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose four in two days looks like carelessness. Actually, it looks like more like meltdown time for the New Labour government as it tears itself apart.

The leaked resignation plans of home secretary Jacqui Smith and the decision of two other ministers to leave the government yesterday in advance of a cabinet reshuffle, only reinforce the view that Gordon Brown is now prime minister of a government that is holed below the water line (thus the appearance of rats leaving a sinking ship). The resignation this morning of communities secretary Hazel Blears only adds to the nightmare on Downing Street.

And when even The Guardian, a newspaper known best as a New Labour supplicant, tells Brown that his time is up, you get the picture. The paper wants Labour MPs to “cut him [Brown] loose” now, while there’s still time, in its view, to rescue “progressive politics” in Britain from oblivion.

Several questions arise. Would replacing Brown make any difference to New Labour’s prospects? And, in any case, what is “progressive” about this government that is worth preserving?

There is considerable doubt about whether any other prime minister would make a difference because, in the end, it’s New Labour as a whole that’s despised, not just Brown. The reasons why the government has run into the sands are complex, but the turning point was undoubtedly the financial crash that began in 2007.

Almost everything New Labour did and does was based around introducing in a messianic way the alleged virtues of the market into areas of public life like education, housing and local services. After the kind of open market capitalism championed by Brown and Blair before him plunged into crisis, the government’s ideological underpinning went into tailspin too.

The bailing out of the banks is hailed as “decisive action” in some quarters, but it also showed the general population that a) the government had deceived them about the economy b) the bankers would not suffer in any circumstances c) ordinary people would pay the price in terms of unemployment and repossessions.

When the scandal of MPs expenses was added to this cocktail recently, the die was cast. Leading members of the government, not content with their six-figure salaries and massive pensions, as well as backbench MPs, were milking the system for all it was worth and Brown was unable to respond as the political crisis mounted.

And so what is so “progressive” about New Labour? The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? A systematic destruction of human rights and civil liberties? Cutting welfare benefits? Promoting financial and corporate interests without hesitation? Allowing privatised rail companies to rip off the public? Presiding over growing inequality? Opening public service provision up to the private sector on a vast scale? Reducing Parliament’s status further to the point where there was hardly anything for MPs to do? Encouraging the economy to “grow” on the basis of massive consumer debts? The list is endless.

The disintegration of New Labour is neither a time for rejoicing nor an occasion for sorrow but for a sober assessment as to where we have arrived at politically and historically. Wherever you look, the old order is breaking apart and political instability at a time of economic and political crisis obviously brings dangers along with it. But they also present opportunities to develop and organise a movement that looks beyond the narrow focus of who may or may not win a general election towards a democratic reorganisation of society as a whole.

Paul Feldman
AWTW communications editor

Beyond New Labour's civil war

The thing about the civil war that is now consuming New Labour is that it is absolutely impossible to take sides. For not even the most powerful microscope in the world would reveal a microbe of a principle in any camp.

On the one side there are the Brownites, whose protagonist is congenitally incapable of leadership or clarity. His policies shaped the first decade of New Labour, with its mixture of privatisation, unworkable means-tested benefits, rising inequality and worship of global markets.

On the other side are the Blairites, who brought us privatisation, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the “war on terror”, rising inequality and worship of global markets. They oppose Brown because he is not Blair and want more extreme pro-market policies. Having watched Brown plot against Blair, they are giving him the same treatment.

And yet these are the people who daily promote “choice” as the way forward! And if there is to be a leadership contest, both sides will no doubt unite to prevent John McDonnell, the lone left-wing voice, from getting on the ballot as they did last year.

The background to the crisis is, of course, the fact that former loyal supporters and the electorate in general, have rumbled New Labour for what it is and the party is facing oblivion. That was the message from Glasgow East, where some of the people most left behind by New Labour turned in despair to the nationalists.

Blair/Brownism is Thatcherism by another name, only deeper and much more dishonest. New Labour has gone where the Tories did not dare in NHS privatisation, the break-up of comprehensive education, attacks on benefits, witch-hunting of asylum seekers, student fees, post office closures and the elimination of human rights.

No amount of leadership changes or revamped policies can disguise this agenda, which has gone a long way to creating a market state in place of the welfare state that, ironically, Labour in its previous incarnation established after World War II. Nor is all this simply the result of policy “mistakes” but is the reflection in politics of the deeper process of corporate-driven globalisation which has eliminated the basis of reformist politics.

New Labour’s demise is truly the end of an era in British politics and if you doubt that, just look at what is happening in Scotland. Brown is nominally the leader of the party in Scotland as well as England. But you wouldn’t think so, judging by the battle to become New Labour’s leader in the Scottish parliament.

Tom McCabe, a former minister, yesterday called for the next leader to have "complete control" of the Scottish party, including Labour's MPs at Westminster. Adopting policies promoted by the Scottish National Party, McCabe said council tax should be abolished and the Edinburgh parliament be given tax-raising powers.

McCabe added: "For too long, there have been Scottish Labour politicians at local government level and at Westminster who have been resentful, and even contemptuous, of the Scottish Parliament. That behaviour needs to stop now." What McCabe is proposing would end Labour’s historic form as a unified party covering England, Scotland and Wales.

As to the leadership contest itself, bitter in-fighting has erupted between the three candidates’ rival camps. A senior member of the Andy Kerr team launched an attack on Cathy Jamieson, dismissing her as a left-wing “cave woman”. Nice.

While the break-up of New Labour is not a time for weeping, it provides a unique opportunity for discussion about how the aspirations of the disenfranchised majority can be reflected in new political forms. Added urgency is given by the onset of recession, combined with soaring utility bills and a housing crisis.

Some unions like the RMT transport workers and the firefighters in the FBU are no longer affiliated to New Labour but are opposed to the Tories coming back. These unions have an obligation to get together with John McDonnell and others and organise this debate now.

Paul Feldman
AWTW communications editor