The Theory and Practice of Recent “Socialism” in Britain. – Tim Veater

Posted on May 7, 2014 by Admin

The Theory and Practice of Recent “Socialism” in Britain. – Tim Veater

The decade of Labour Party political control of British government (1997 – 2010)

was a strange mix of populist libertarian, versus authoritarian moralist;

egalitarian socialist versus hedonistic capitalist. The reality was often the

very opposite of the rhetoric.

This has been very confusing for the elector and in the longer term deeply

damaging to confidence in a civilized, pluralistic, tolerant democracy. The fact

that even when you vote for something at a general election, you get something

quite different, rather undermines the principle and breeds a deep level of

cynicism. It has reflected itself in turnout and/or unpredictable voting

behaviour.

Suffrage, whilst being progressively widened has not compensated for the

disillusionment felt by particularly younger age groups that now have to

experience far worse prospects and have in consequence abstained from

participating in elections, whether they be local, national or European. “Ode to

Joy” does not accurately reflect the mood or confidence in the European ideal or

Parliament, which if anything affords even less respect than national

parliaments and the politicians that occupy them.

This means that the views of this cohort of younger people is under-represented,

its interests not as protected in policy decisions. It is also surely a factor

in the rise of “UKIP” – effectively so far a one-man party of protest but it may

mature and become electable. After all look at the Scottish Nationalists. What

cannot be denied is that the stance and statements of the UKIP leader have

struck a genuine chord with a segment of the British electorate. The European

elections will test how reliable this is. If polls are accurate, we could be

represented in Strasbourg by individuals who do not want to be there!

The politically correct, crony, corrupt and a disconnected political elite has

been prepared to sacrifice deeply engrained “Englishness” (for want of a better

term) to supra-national government and globalisation. That Britain may not be a

“Christian Country” any longer (even an ex-Archbishop of Canterbury thinks so)

the ethos, and allegiance is deeply engrained in philosophy, history, attitudes

and emotion, proved in times of crisis and the ritual of church and state so

distinctive of Britain. People may be too busy or sophisticated, too doubting

and modest to claim to Christian dogma, nevertheless it permeates the English

psyche to such an extent it cannot be dismissed nor its achievements gainsaid.

So the Labour Years were hardly socialist at all. Government was famously “very

relaxed” about personal wealth as Mr Blair subsequently demonstrated. In

contrast to the libertarian agenda pushed hard in government and its

subsidiaries of “equality and inclusion”, mainly for those of different sexual

and religious persuasions, in many cases positions became more entrenched and

sexual malpractice in high places covered-up at the expense of those from

largely deprived backgrounds, who were taken advantage of. Meanwhile the

historic stable basis of “the family” has been undermined and challenged, with

wider society picking up the pieces and cost.

Despite extolling the principles of “freedom” more was done in those years to

curtail it, both here and abroad, than ever before. Fundamental changes to the

power of detention, fortunately largely rejected, were made. Downing Street

became a gated enclave guarded by automatic rifle-wielding policemen that even

Cabinet members would have difficulty getting past. More criminal offences were

added to the statute book than ever before. Smoking bans were imposed, even in

premises and on people who wanted to continue, whilst confusingly the rules on

alcohol consumption were so relaxed as to cause major disruption, damage and

death. Calls for greater police powers and weapons – including a useful little

device called the “Taser”- and the deployment and training of armed officers,

became far more common. Even tanks at one stage, were deployed at Heathrow

Airport, although for what purpose has never been explained. Were they intending

to shell a terrorist?

An inconsistent and arbitrary approach was taken to reforming or just

interfering with the English Constitution. It became the play-thing of a Prime

Minister lacking historical or constitutional insight and perspective. In former

times at least this would only happen after a thorough examination or Royal

Commission. Now at his whim, one of the oldest offices in the land, the Lord

Chancellor, could be swept away, and the House of Lords ransacked before a

suitable alternative had been agreed. (Now the chief law officer does not even

have to be legally qualified!) Similarly Local Government was meddled with,

moving it towards often unwanted regional arrangements, whilst continuing the

process of removing its functions and undermining its status and ancient

dignities. It was an ad-hoc approach to local government that was rejected in

the North East at least and so not even offered to other areas other than in the

form of the Regional Development Councils and in combining the emer

gency services.

Wales and Scottish devolution in isolation to the rest of England is now

witnessing the break-up of a union that has worked reasonably well for three

hundred years, and which if the Scots vote for independence will see the demise

of the Labour party as a political force in England for the foreseeable future.

Even this possibility appears to have failed to galvanise the existing Labour

leadership. So both at local and national level the purpose and functions of

government have been undermined.

As to Britain’s contact abroad, it was paradoxically a “socialist”

administration that over-saw Britain involvement in two major military

aggressive actions and several other less significant ones. This might be said

to have been a personal crusade on the part of the Prime Minister for which he

is unrepentant and recalcitrant. Whether they have been worth the human and

financial cost is subject to debate.

A socialist government saw manufacturing collapse and unemployment swell. As a

final flourish a socialist government allowed an unfettered capitalism to bring

the whole economy to a point of collapse, whilst protecting the banks and their

capitalist managers. It even started to dismantle the national heath system by

seeking private capital at extortionate rates. All these “achievements” continue

to have profound implications for the economy and society generally.

The lesson we can take from this is that it is not always those who claim to be

working in the best interests of the population (shall we call the them the

working and middle classes?) actually do. That good intentions are not

necessarily a guarantee of good results. That “socialists” are no less prone to

the temptations of the flesh and the seven deadly sins than are “capitalists”,

as recent events in the Co-op have demonstrated. That high profile “image” of

national figures cannot be relied upon for good character. That the common

temptation to append “good” and “bad” to Labour and Conservative respectively,

should be resisted for the fallacy that it is. That not even relying on what

someone thinks “is right” can be relied upon for an outcome that is more good

than bad.

So are there any imperatives for the future or is all lost? Does it really

matter if there is an United Kingdom, sovereign and distinct, or should we all

be comfortable with the notion of it gently disintegrating and fading away as

all empires and human institutions must, being instead merely a constituent

region of a greater European union? If the latter is to be our chosen objective,

then why bother with Monarch, House of Lords and Commons? Hundreds of millions

of pounds could be saved by abolishing them. We could revert to our much older

and competitive regions, all looking to Brussels for our protection and

political leadership in the big wide world. In some ways we would just be

returning to a situation a thousand years old, when most of Europe was unified

under a common church and common empire, yet not without its internal feuds and

tensions. Who knows we might even return to speaking Latin as well?

The problem is that government has lacked strategic thinking, or if not, it has

failed to communicate it to, or intentionally mislead, the public. How many for

example in 1974 would have voted for accession to the EC if they had been told

quite honestly that eventually political union was intended and not just a free

trade area? How many at the time of Enoch Powell’s “River of Blood” speech would

have backed the government if it had plainly stated what the relaxed immigration

policy would entail? Who would have voted to join the Common Agricultural or

Fisheries Policies had they known how it would decimate and ruin both industries

and hand them over to others? And this as much by Conservative as Labour

administrations.

What we cannot be sure about is what would have happened to the British economy

had we not joined the EEC (now the EC). Would it have thrived as did the Swiss

and Norwegian economies based on oil extraction, banking, instrumentation and

drugs, or would it crash as did the Greek one based on shipping and tourism.

Would Britain have still been chosen by international firms, particularly motor

manufacture? Would we have closed the coal mines? Would our manufacturing sector

have thrived or fared even worse? Would the links with the Commonwealth have

been retained? Would trade with Europe and the rest of the world been encouraged

or shut off? What has been the net cost of membership of the union and was it

worth it?

Scottish Independence, if it happens will bring the matter to a head. England

will have to address the issues and its long term future. Where and what does it

want to be? Will foreign investment dry up? Will foreign-owned manufacturing

plants close or move elsewhere? What if we vote to leave Europe, and Scotland

either remains or joins – depending on how you look at it? If we left the EC

would that entail an ever closer relationship to the United States, and if so

would that be better or worse? Would separateness from the EC enhance or detract

from our world role in the UN and elsewhere and would it matter much anyway?

The reality is that the period in which Labour was “in control”, huge amounts of

private debt has been transferred to the state and tax payer with little hope it

will ever be paid off. (We can argue whether it was responsible for this state

of affairs or merely unwilling victim) Rather like Harold Wilson’s “pound in

your pocket” phrase, that in one sense was true but essentially not, so selling

the rescue of the banks as being pain-free for the population was and is a lie –

and a pernicious one. Allowing those in charge of banks to continue walking

away with vast rewards whilst the rest pick up the bill cannot be acceptable.

Allowing them to argue that they should be exempt from the pain, resisted. That

if not left alone they will bring the economy to ruin, shown to be the heinous

blackmail it is.

We know, don’t we, that the only way the debt can be repaid is by reducing

public services and the standard of living, increasing taxation and de-valuing

capital, being the difference between inflation and interest. The “pound in our

pockets” has definitely been affected.

Insofar as those reaching retirement in the future are concerned, state pension

will be deferred, private pension will be worth less, health and social care

will cost more, even if available. It is this cohort, shall we say the twenty to

fifty year-olds, that might be justified in expressing its disenchantment, even

disgust.

Politics if it is to have any future at all, needs to start addressing these

over-arching issues. The British Constitution may not be the hottest topic in

the pub, church or health club, but very soon the Scottish Independence issue

will force government, institutions and people to address the issue. Both Labour

and Conservatives may rue the day their apathy allowed the Scots to become

disillusioned with them. It may be Mrs Thatcher’s final contribution to the

break-up of an enduring and mutually beneficial arrangement. So perhaps we

shouldn’t blame EVERYTHING on the Blair/Brown partnership!