At 09/01/02 20:20 -0500, you wrote: >Chris Burford wrote: > >>Rather rambling article from a political commentator, Polly Toynbee, >>who usually has her ear very much to the ground of New Labour and is >>probably correct about this too: >> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,629668,00.html >> >>The central content of the article is that New Labour's electoral >>successes have indeed shifted the centre of gravity of politics in Britain. >> >>Best evidence of this is that yesterday, amazingly, the Conservative >>Party came out in favour of "the neighbourly society" - poor Margaret >>Thatcher, who thought there was no such thing as society. > >Yeah, but Blair still wants to privatize the London Underground, no? Seems >to me that Sir Alan Walters was right, when he said that Mrs T's most >lasting achievement was the transformation of the Labour Party. > >Doug
In one sense that it true. Thatcher inflicted such a crippling defeat on Labour that Labour had to shift position or die. New Labour has now done this to the Conservatives who face a very real possibility of becoming a little England party, populist in a reactive way with snobbish people but with no credibility in the eyes of finance capital. Although Thatcher's preferred candidate Ian Duncan-Smith won the election for leader, he has quietly been reducing the focus on hostility to the euro. His shadow ministers have announced tectonic shifts in British politics: they are not against tax increases for state welfare, and they are in favour of society. As far as New Labour is concerned it continues to grate against the very strong tradition of ethical socialism in Britain, based on the non-conformist churches. I think New Labour remains dedicated in its conscientious opportunism to be guided always by what will help it remain dominant in public opinion. Nevertheless within those severe constraints, and although New Labour will do nothing to offend finance capital, it thinks in terms of managing the whole society, consumers, market, capital, and therefore has a certain willingness to introduce subtle reformist reforms which may slightly promote social production guided by social foresight. New Labour ministers were probably significantly influenced by Marxism Today, eurocommunist publication of the 80's, which was systematically opportunist in its efforts to think how to capture a Gramscian ideological hegemony. New Labour has succeeded in that however distastefully, which now allows it a small degree of space to make some shifts. On the specific issue you raise of privatisation of the London Underground they appear to have waited for public opinion to be disillusioned with privatisation of overland trains, and the rail disasters, and are seeking some sort of renationalisation of Railtrack into a not-for-profit-company. So typically they are probably trying to move the debate on by reframing the questions to blur any conflict between the longer terms interests of finance capital and those of social foresight. But yes, no ethical socialist has any prospect of voting New Labour with a clear conscience, and should not begin to attempt to do so. Nevertheless Polly Toynbee, scourge of the idealist left, is probably correct that a shift has occurred. And as a scourge of the idealist left, she is an interest source for such a view. Chris Burford London
