Left MPs are being played for suckers
Left MPs are being played for suckers
Michael Hindley MEP gives a global perspective
Last month I took part in a stimulating two day seminar on this year's hottest topic, "globalisation". The speakers included Alan Simpson and myself from the Labour Party (both of us, to use Rhodri Morgan's wonderful coinage, "Vintage Labour"). The attraction and interest came from the range of speakers. Chaired by members from the Nordic Green/Left, the panel included Jan Marijnissen, Leader of the Dutch Socialist Party, which is on course for winning a seat in the Euro-elections next summer. Other excellent contributions came from the German Greens, understandably elated by their place in the new German government.
The simple point I want to make is that proportional representation (PR) has allowed a range of radical and progressive views to be elected, to be on the inside, and once there they get prominence, access and confidence and provide a healthy cross-fertilisation of ideas.
An attempt has been made inside the mainstream centre-left to get a debate going on "globalisation". When the European Parliament agreed to ratify the final GATT round, the Socialist Group only gave qualified support, saying their affirmation of the GATT treaty depended on the continuation and development of a Social Agenda. The Group then agreed "in principle" to draw up a report on winners and losers in the new world trading order.
The development of what is now called the global economy is at best uneven and the variations between regions and sectors of the economy will be enormous. The suspicion is that those regions and sectors of the economy which suffer most will be those areas which traditionally support left of centre politics. If this is so, then we need to developed a strategy for the global economy more in keeping with the needs and desires of our core supporters than persist in the oft-disproven theory of trickle down wealth. Faced with such a radical demand the Socialist Group dithered in bureaucratic delay, changed the original idea into a more general study of globalisation and finally, last week, produced an anodyne report which came to no conclusion. The ruling left parties are going to do nothing unless pushed; I think they will eventually be pushed by the pressure of events as the global economy continues to unravel and millions of ordinary people pay with jobs and cuts in welfare, as the western states reduce themselves to organising bail outs for the very mad-cap speculators and carpet-bagger capitalists whom they once championed.
The prospect for the Labour left inside New Labour offers little other than a sustained war of attrition to defend the Grassroots gains in the NEC votes this year. The prospects for Blair's cabinet listening to a voice on global economics to the left of the Economist are nil. It will take the inevitable further collapse after the Euro is introduced to get even the Keynesians at the New Labour high table.
But in Germany, Schroeder actually must listen to more radical voices. He dearly wanted a hung Parliament and a Grand Coalition. The right of the SPD in Strasbourg in the run-up to the election were openly advocating a Grand Coalition as the necessary stable base for "reform" of Germany's generous welfare system, paid for by high taxes. But these centrist desires (covered by Schroeder's call for a New Middle) have been frustrated by the electorate, or more precisely, the electoral system. What is more, leftists inside the SPD like Oskar Lafontaine are also strengthened in their struggle with the trimmers by the existence inside Parliament of the Greens and the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS).
Blair clearly wants a coalition government which excludes his own left; we already have one in all but name with the announcement of an extension of co-operation with the Lib-Dems and the granting of key jobs in trade strategy to Ken Clarke on Mexico and Heseltine on China. Blair could still well go for a New Party, though consideration of who gets the residual monies is one of the few things holding him back.
Under our present system the PLP is reduced to impotent grumbling. The left would never vote down a Labour government - on the notion, ill-founded in history, that any Labour government is better than any Tory government. I have just finished Ted Heath's autobiography, essential reading for anyone still blind enough to believe that old chestnut. What matters is the political climate of the times that defines what any government can do. The task of the left is to create that climate, not grimly hang on the illusion of power through Blair plc.
The left inside the PLP is being played for suckers. The existence of elected forces to the left of Labour would at last put spice into the debate and some spine into the PLP.
previous article · Dec '98 index of LLB · write to LLB · LLB home page · next article