Penners
A few weeks ago Tony Blair presidentially appointed the chairman of the
Labour Party without acknowledging that the post already existed, and
has done for decades. The chair of the party an elected post. But such
is Mr Tony's adherence to the norms of democracy that he saw fit to
override legal protocol and impose his own appointee. The person he
chose, Charles Clarke, was, only a while ago, being written off by such
"insightful" commentators as Andrew Roth as too associated with the
"failed" regime of Neil Kinnock, whose close adviser he was. In an
earlier post Clarke was identified as having been a key figure in the
Labour leadership's efforts to discredit the miners' strike of 1984/5
and having had earlier experience in CIA-backed ICFTU trade unionism.
That his association with the electorally failed regime of Kinnock would
have put an end to his political career is a measure of the inanity that
passes for political journalism in Britain, where there is barely any
acknowledgement of the largely obvious: the vast majority of the Blair
entourage are the beneficiaries of the Kinnock ascendancy. Kinnock
himself is now ensconced as the vice president of the European
Commission, succeeding Leon Brittan in the mission to tailor that august
institution to suit British sensibilities, in line with the British
state's overall determination to integrate further in the European Union
(see earlier posts by Mark Jones). The role of Kinnock and Brittan in
this requires a separate post that may, or may not, materialise.
Whatever, Kinnock has hardly failed and has been well-rewarded by his
backers in the permanent government with his current appointment.
Meanwhile Kinnock's erstwhile deputy, Roy Hattersley, continues to
display a quality that is both endearing and infuriating: political
naivete. In the article below, in which he complains of Clarke's
appointment (whilst making sure not to bad-mouth Clarke himself), he
says: "When I was a member of Labour's national executive, Tony Benn
would make long speeches about the plot to transfer all power from party
members to the parliamentary leadership. Neil Kinnock and I shook our
heads in bewilderment and mumbled about the need for Tony to lie down in
a darkened room. I now realise that, far from being demented, he was
prescient." Nice one, Roy. Now, prescience would imply there being some
element of continuity in the Kinnock "reforms" and the present Blair
autocracy. But that is not a road Roy is either willing or able to
travel down, at least yet.
The truth of the matter is that New Labour is the ultimate triumph of
the "liberal" wing of the CIA and US National Security State. Harold
Wilson, Jim Callaghan and Michael Foot represented an interregnum which
allowed the dangerous emergence of the New Left within the Labour Party,
and which had to be beaten down and out with the full force of the
British secret state, itself assisted by its US allies (hence the
disowning of the miners' strike, support for repressive Thatcherite
employment legislation, the surrender of the BBC and the assiduous
courting of business interests). While the out-and-out reactionaries
like James Angleton believed any kind of socialism equated to Soviet
communism, the liberals used the language of social democracy (via the
Socialist International, the ICFTU, etc.) and nurtured relationships
with certain amenable social democrats (Hugh Gaitskell, Michael Stewart,
Denis Healey, David Owen, Shirley Williams, George Robertson, Peter
Mandelson, to name but a few) via such tailor made outfits as the
British American Project for a Successor Generation in order to
accomplish exactly what Blair is achieving now. There is a lot of detail
behind all this that requires deeper explanation, but the essence is
just that.
As for Mark's points re the split between the US and the UK, it is quite
possible that slavish adherence to US dictates appeals less than a
leadership role (there could be no other for Great Britain, after all)
in a European counterweight to US hegemony. Fanciful it might be, a long
term ambition it would certainly have to be. Nevertheless, it would be a
strategically logical maneuver for a third-rate imperialist power
desperately punching above its weight. The Conservatives' attachment to
empire (preserved by the punk Thatcherite tendency) is wholly
anachronistic, as it was in 1945. But it was why the "liberal" wing of
the US national security state preferred to do business with the
Gaitskellites, who could be relied upon not to do anything foolish re
Cold War strategy, but who also "knew their place" in the new
international order dominated by the US. Once the labour movement was
destroyed, including especially the trade union bastions of Communist
Party influence in Britain, the right wing of the Labour Party could be
entrusted with the rudder of state, subject, of course, to the
imprimatur of the permanent government.
Blair mistook his Clarke for a chair
The PM flouted party rules by handing over a title already held
Roy Hattersley
Guardian
Thursday July 26, 2001
Believe me, I was only trying to be helpful. But when I asked the young
man in the Labour party press office about the constitutional status of
Charles Clarke, I was sternly instructed "to focus on the job, not its
name". Then he gratuitously added that Maggie Jones, the Unison officer
who anticipates chairing the annual conference, "is not party chair,
only chair of the national executive". Clause 8 part 2 of the party
constitution says quite the opposite. The prime minister had no
authority to bestow the title on Charles Clarke.
Bereft of reliable "official guidance", I consulted two members of
Labour's national executive - one a hallmarked Blairite, the other
semi-independent. They both gave me exactly the same reply. Perhaps, at
the end of Wednesday morning's national executive meeting, they all
repeated the message in unison like a Chinese nursery school exalting
the virtues of the Great Leader. "For Charles, chairman is purely a
courtesy title. The idea of constitutional change was discussed
informally but decided against."
It was decided against after Tony Blair discovered that some of the
trade unionists who serve on Labour's national executive have too much
self-respect to rubber stamp a decision about which they were not
consulted. But that does not mean that democracy has triumphed. The
title of party chairman (sic) has been transferred to Charles Clarke by
stealth - just as the Labour party became New Labour after the promise
that the name would not be changed. It is Clarke, not Maggie Jones, who
will be described as chairman in the newspapers. Yesterday's party press
release, announcing the appointment of a new general secretary, referred
to Clarke as if his bogus title was real. Integrity requires journalists
to add honoris causa .
Does the new name matter? Of course it does. If it were of no
consequence the prime minister would not have chosen to give that name
to the intermediary between party and government. It is intended to
convince Labour activists that Clarke is their man when, in truth, he is
the prime minister's. I have no doubt that the minister without
portfolio (to give him his proper title) will often tell Tony Blair hard
truths which he would prefer not to hear. But it was the prime minister
who made the appointment and it is the prime minister to whom Clarke is
answerable. No matter how independent his inclination, he will work for
Downing Street.
There is a second, and even more important, objection to the bogus
title. By choosing a name which he had no constitutional right to
choose, the prime minister was again demonstrating that he runs the
party as well as the government. A Labour party supporter of great
distinction - and 50 years service in the party's cause - told me that
he did not vote at the last general election because he resented having
his "nose rubbed in the destruction of all the party once stood for".
When Tony Blair claimed the right to call his own nominee the chairman
of the party he was administering more of the same punishment.
When I was a member of Labour's national executive, Tony Benn would make
long speeches about the plot to transfer all power from party members to
the parliamentary leadership. Neil Kinnock and I shook our heads in
bewilderment and mumbled about the need for Tony to lie down in a
darkened room. I now realise that, far from being demented, he was
prescient. The prime minister no doubt congratulates himself that it has
become virtually impossible for Labour party members who disagree with
his policies to make nuisances of themselves at the annual conference.
But the complaint that it is no longer possible to express dissent is
why so many members have left the party. In the short term the changes
guarantee a quiet life. But when the pendulum begins to swing there will
be too few members with enough long-term loyalty to defend an
increasingly unpopular government.
There was a real need to appoint a minister to keep the government in
touch with the party - not justify the ways of God to man but speak up
for the rank and file. Charles Clarke will do the job better than most
of the possible alternatives. But his prospects of success have been
severely reduced by another example of the too-clever-by-half press
manipulation which has so often damaged this government. Thousands of
party members have been rightly offended. And it seems there is no
argument with which they can be placated.
The young man from the press office who promised to telephone me with a
happier explanation of how the title of chairman was chosen failed to
keep his word. So the best I can do is report a national executive
member's attempt to absolve the prime minister from blame. "Not deceit,"
I was told. "Just a cockup. He called the job chairman because that is
what the Conservatives do".
Full article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4228365,00.html
Michael Keaney
Mercuria Business School
Martinlaaksontie 36
01620 Vantaa
Finland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
