In the last few weeks, Green supporters
like me were pressured to ‘swap’ our votes or simply vote Labour to stop the
Tories – not a positive message, not based on hope, not based on policy – purely
based on fear. But it truly was ‘vote for the lesser of two evils’, where
Labour were just Tories with the volume turned down. And no doubt many
thousands of Green voters did exactly that – even here in Cambridge we saw
split votes, voting Green locally and Labour nationally. The reason why Labour
lost was not the Greens – it was their lack of opposition, failure to provide
an alternative and wholesale acceptance of the Tory version of the truth.
Labour embraced the ‘deficit’ narrative
buying into the way this was distorted by the Tories where ‘deficit’ was somehow
equated conceptually with household debt. We built the welfare state, provided
free education with a deficit and real debt much higher than we have currently.
There is no external pressure to pay this fake debt back either – no giant
bailiffs at the door. This has everything to do with profit, and the way our
economy works, which is no longer based on production but the creation and
movement of money. Yet Labour never questioned this, never opposed it. Their
shadow chancellor accepted Tory fiscal policy and Labour MPs voted with the
government for a further £30bn in cuts.
In truth, the policy of austerity is driven
by two things – to stabilize and maximize the profit margins in the City,
restoring confidence in UK banks; and a neo-liberalist ideology to destroy the
welfare state.
Across the board Labour abandoned their
principles and own ideology in favour of what they called ‘centrist’ but what I
would see as a right-wing populism, in some cases even adopting versions of
UKIP policies. They carved ‘immigration control’ on a stone tablet; bought into
the continuing right-wing denigration of the teaching profession, continuing
the OFSTED reign of terror and introducing idiotic ideas like the ‘teacher MOT’
and ‘oath’; replaced the bedroom tax with youth tax; deserted the poor for ‘working
families’; only disputed Trident on the basis of precisely how many WMDs they’d like: - the list goes on.
When a political party abandons ideology
and principles simply to garner the maximum number of votes, what does it
become? How can it retain any identity, or more critically, how does it remain
distinct from other parties and offer an alternative?
I think what we have seen here is that it
cannot. If you admit the same fiscal problems and follow the same solutions as
another party, but offer a toned-down version of the same solution, what do you
think the electorate will do? Vote for the full version of the solution to this
problem you have admitted, or for the non-committed version that you offer?
-You accept that fracking is a good thing
for the country and the economy, but with ‘conditions’. The Tories say the same
thing but will go full on. What’s the option for the voter?
-Tories say that the NHS needs private
capital. You agree, but will limit it to just 5%. Why?
Another terrible mistake was buying into
the Tory narrative that the Scots are the ‘enemy within’. The betrayal of the
Scots by the Labour party during and immediately after the Indyref was
inexcusable, but then to add insult to injury by admitting that another Tory
government would be preferable to any deal with the SNP – Labour was deservedly
eradicated.
When Nicola Sturgeon – not even standing in
this election in Scotland – won the Leaders’ Debate hands-down amongst even the
English electorate, Labour possibly recognized then, too late, they had made a
horrific mistake. Painting the anti-austerity SNP as rebels and secessionists
and as a threat to England (and even democracy!) was their only option. The SNP
didn’t stand on a devolution ticket in this election. They stood proudly and
firmly against the Tories, they provided a real alternative and true
opposition. And they sent ‘proud Edward’s army home tae think again’!
It has been said that for the Syriza
alliance and Podemos to grow in Greece and Spain, their Labour parties had to
die. In many ways, the Labour party of old, to which we owe a great debt of
gratitude, died with John Smith. Blair was a thatcherite populist, to put it
politely, and yet as the Labour exec casts about for identity, they are
forgetting his crimes and crediting him with ‘Labour’s‘ last electoral win.
But the memory of Labour is only disgraced by Blair, and to credit him with
anything other than the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands is sickeningly
deluded.
Now is the right time for a new alliance,
and a new party to be born from the ashes – a rebirth of true labour. But only
the death of the party will ensure that the base will switch allegiance, forced
to admit that the Labour Party no longer represents them or their best
interests, and look to a new party on the basis of ideology and policy – the
fundamental elements that create the distinctive identity of a political party
- and which make it electable.