Why the return of Tony Blair IS worth worrying about
Sunny Hundal's recent piece over on Liberal Conspiracy sketched out a body of reasoning outlining why, apparently, Tony Blair's recent reprisal, re-emergence, political respawning - call it whatever you like - within the Labour Party is nothing whatsoever to pay attention to. Ed Miliband, we are assured, is the very political python we've always dreamed of, navigating his victorious path through the jungle of leftist politics, wooing each and every ideological animal on his way to delivering 'responsible capitalism' for us all.
An obvious problem is immediately raised: Tony Blair is not really a man many on the left want to be associated with at all, be it indeed, in mere capacity and not ideas. The acceptance of the Thatcherite consensus and two disgusting, flesh-drenched military adventures are two obvious reasons for Miliband to distance himself from Blair. Hundal assures us, however, that Miliband is simply utilising Blair's support-base - presumably among the nation's wealthy - to garner donations and indeed, further his very own base of electoral support. The issue is, as Hundal acknowledges, whether or not Miliband's courting of Blair's 'support' deters more voters from pledging faith to Labour than it attracts, and the move does wreak of classic, Brownite electoral sycophancy: seeking votes wherever possible, through any available means, irrespective of how morally gruesome these means may be. The article goes on to insist however, that 'all is well'. Blair has no influence on policy and Miliband's "own [ideological] direction", that tends towards economic operations in favour of "most working people" and not just "the few", and promises to fight tooth and nail for the "families struggling to make ends meet and pay their mortgage", is a million left turns away from the the politics of Blair. Yet in Tony Blair, Miliband holds the faith of the man who promised, in an infamous moment of euphoria, to "speak up for that decent hard-working majority who's voice has been silent for all too long", in the aim of a "just and decent" social life, that "extended opportunity to all". A man who promised, once upon a time, to drive socialism successfully against the "unjust" winds of a society that propels "privilege and not hard work", flying in the face of "industry" and belittling "skills" and that ultimately, "is divided, unequal and set against itself". Sounds familiar? The circumstantial policy of the time of course differs in that Miliband's focus upon the financial sector is nowhere to be seen in the rhetoric of Blair, yet the underlying promises, connotations and themes are eerily alike; to help and speak for working people, to create a just, equal society and in linguistic principle if rarely in action, a form of capitalism tempered by the guidance of the state.
A further issue for Miliband is the complete incoherence of his various proposals. 'Responsible capitalism' aims to rewire the UK capitalist economy's core engine, the financial sector, to serve the long-term interests of businesses and shareholders. How exactly this ensures capitalism itself becomes responsible and mechanically directed towards a long-term aim, is then rather discarded, as if to hopefully elude the public eye: whether or not crises are systemic to the fluidity of capital and productive growth, or how the continuing national divergence between the poorest and rich may be countered within the continental context of neoliberalism for instance - despite one would be entitled to think, resting among the most crucial, explicit questions of notions of a responsible capitalism - enter the debate at no stage whatsoever. It is these very statements of slender substance that are coming to define Miliband and every proposal his shadow cabinet places forward. Bearing 'responsible capitalism' in mind, Miliband has recently called for the Labour Party to assess not only the benefits, but the 'costs' of international migration to Britain, in regards to the economic pressure applied to the lower classes by the influx of migrants. Yet what of the economic pressures that propel international migration in the first instance? A 'responsible capitalism' would surely attempt to account for this and tackle the grossly uneven, global distribution of resources that treads the tires of migration in the first instance. And of the poor buggers who despise these 'pakis and polish' that rob everyone of employment, illegally purge copious amounts of welfare from the government and are somehow, 'stealing' the country? We must, Miliband insists, empathise with the concerns of these pathetic racists and act upon them. What exactly Miliband is trying to achieve by engaging and himself, actively espousing economic illiteracy is plain obvious: power.
Courting contradictory ideological bases, promoting superlative party lines of terribly weak punch and clambering onto whichever populist boulders of electoral support that roll his way; the public have already fallen for one Ed Miliband. They are unlikely to fall for another.
An obvious problem is immediately raised: Tony Blair is not really a man many on the left want to be associated with at all, be it indeed, in mere capacity and not ideas. The acceptance of the Thatcherite consensus and two disgusting, flesh-drenched military adventures are two obvious reasons for Miliband to distance himself from Blair. Hundal assures us, however, that Miliband is simply utilising Blair's support-base - presumably among the nation's wealthy - to garner donations and indeed, further his very own base of electoral support. The issue is, as Hundal acknowledges, whether or not Miliband's courting of Blair's 'support' deters more voters from pledging faith to Labour than it attracts, and the move does wreak of classic, Brownite electoral sycophancy: seeking votes wherever possible, through any available means, irrespective of how morally gruesome these means may be. The article goes on to insist however, that 'all is well'. Blair has no influence on policy and Miliband's "own [ideological] direction", that tends towards economic operations in favour of "most working people" and not just "the few", and promises to fight tooth and nail for the "families struggling to make ends meet and pay their mortgage", is a million left turns away from the the politics of Blair. Yet in Tony Blair, Miliband holds the faith of the man who promised, in an infamous moment of euphoria, to "speak up for that decent hard-working majority who's voice has been silent for all too long", in the aim of a "just and decent" social life, that "extended opportunity to all". A man who promised, once upon a time, to drive socialism successfully against the "unjust" winds of a society that propels "privilege and not hard work", flying in the face of "industry" and belittling "skills" and that ultimately, "is divided, unequal and set against itself". Sounds familiar? The circumstantial policy of the time of course differs in that Miliband's focus upon the financial sector is nowhere to be seen in the rhetoric of Blair, yet the underlying promises, connotations and themes are eerily alike; to help and speak for working people, to create a just, equal society and in linguistic principle if rarely in action, a form of capitalism tempered by the guidance of the state.
A further issue for Miliband is the complete incoherence of his various proposals. 'Responsible capitalism' aims to rewire the UK capitalist economy's core engine, the financial sector, to serve the long-term interests of businesses and shareholders. How exactly this ensures capitalism itself becomes responsible and mechanically directed towards a long-term aim, is then rather discarded, as if to hopefully elude the public eye: whether or not crises are systemic to the fluidity of capital and productive growth, or how the continuing national divergence between the poorest and rich may be countered within the continental context of neoliberalism for instance - despite one would be entitled to think, resting among the most crucial, explicit questions of notions of a responsible capitalism - enter the debate at no stage whatsoever. It is these very statements of slender substance that are coming to define Miliband and every proposal his shadow cabinet places forward. Bearing 'responsible capitalism' in mind, Miliband has recently called for the Labour Party to assess not only the benefits, but the 'costs' of international migration to Britain, in regards to the economic pressure applied to the lower classes by the influx of migrants. Yet what of the economic pressures that propel international migration in the first instance? A 'responsible capitalism' would surely attempt to account for this and tackle the grossly uneven, global distribution of resources that treads the tires of migration in the first instance. And of the poor buggers who despise these 'pakis and polish' that rob everyone of employment, illegally purge copious amounts of welfare from the government and are somehow, 'stealing' the country? We must, Miliband insists, empathise with the concerns of these pathetic racists and act upon them. What exactly Miliband is trying to achieve by engaging and himself, actively espousing economic illiteracy is plain obvious: power.
Courting contradictory ideological bases, promoting superlative party lines of terribly weak punch and clambering onto whichever populist boulders of electoral support that roll his way; the public have already fallen for one Ed Miliband. They are unlikely to fall for another.
Comments
Post a Comment