Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 00:46:25 -0400
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: M-I: UK Labour Party
Dear Dave and others;
Below is Tony Benn on New Social Democracy of Tony Blair..Be real
interesting to hear what you have to say about this after our discussions
about "critical" support.
Bob Malecki
>
>******************************************************
>
>The following is an interview with Tony Benn MP about
>Blair's plans to destroy Labour Party democracy at the
>annual conference next week.
>
>There is more information about Blair and co's plans, the so
>called "Partnership In Power" proposals, in the October
>issue of Labour Left Briefing:
>
>http://www.labounet.org.uk/llb/1997/october/index.html
>
>
> PiP will not suppress the downtroddens voice
>
> Alistair Ward interviewed Tony
> Benn MP about Partnership In
> Power (PiP) and its effect if
> passed
>
> Q: What is Partnership Into Power (PiP)? What
> does it represent?
>
> A: Its part of a strategy, worked out some
> time ago, for the creation of a new political
> party called New Labour. It is openly
> admitted that it is a new party. The strategy
> has been unfolding with the abandonment of
> Clause IV, which was about a democratic
> commitment to control economic power.
> Then came the Road to the Manifesto
> which enables plebiscites. This is a
> top-down approach. The leader or
> leadership works out something and then
> you can say yes or no to it, but you
> cant use the vote to put forward what you
> want. Then the manifesto which deliberately
> didnt promise very much. Soon after the
> election there was a whole series of moves
> to broaden the base of New Labour to
> include other parties. Mrs Thatcher was
> asked to No. 10 to advise on Europe.
> Heseltine was appointed to the Millennium
> Commission. Mellor was appointed to the
> football task force. Liberals were brought
> onto the Cabinet Consultative Committee
> (with Ashdown speaking about the
> possibility of a coalition). Then you have the
> PiP which is designed to establish a much
> firmer control at the top. Increasingly,
> Conference will be a highly structured
> American Convention, where ministers will
> make statements and there will be a
> structured response. The Constituencies will
> not be allowed to choose the candidates for
> the NEC because there will be a filtering
> process. The idea is to establish a top-down
> party, very much on the American model.
>
> Clinton was re-elected by adopting the
> policies of Newt Gingrich. Only one in five
> Americans voted for him. Eight out of ten
> Americans didnt register, didnt vote, or
> voted against him. In Europe the same thing
> is happening. Control is to be handed to a
> Central Bank, which wont be elected. In
> China the leaders have recently said they
> have got to be competitive. Market forces
> will mean mass unemployment in China. The
> Asian tiger economies have authoritarian
> political leaderships in order to open the
> way for global market forces to operate.
>
> The whole strategy is yet to be completed.
> If there is resistance to cuts in the welfare
> state, neglect of pensions and so on, there
> will be, inevitably, some response. At that
> stage the British establishment will call
> explicitly for a formal coalition. The situation
> is very similar to 1931. The Labour Party
> has gone along with this because it wanted
> to defeat the Tories, but I dont think the
> Labour Party itself has changed very much.
> What has happened is that unemployment,
> legislation and huge media campaigns have
> demoralised the trade union movement and
> others. People now increasingly are moving
> into single issue campaigns: civil liberties,
> pensions, environment, womens rights,
> anti-racism. In every country you will find
> similar movements. I recently had an
> invitation to go to San Francisco for a
> conference organised by trade unions about
> privatisation in the North American free
> trade area. It brought in people from all
> over Latin America. We must establish
> closer links with people in other countries.
> The Internet is very useful for that purpose.
> It is a sort of modern version of the
> soapbox.
>
> Q: What are the consequence that will
> eventually follow PiP?
>
> A: A coalition. First informal and then
> formal, combined with very tough Party
> disciplinary measures. If trade unions are
> won over to PiP next year or soon after
> two things will happen. One is the state
> funding of political parties. This will cut the
> unions completely from the Labour Party.
> Second is proportional representation. It
> has surfaced for the European elections. As
> far as I can make out, Euro-constituencies
> will still be allowed to choose their
> candidates but when all the candidates have
> been chosen, the leadership will decide
> whos at the top of the list. So difficult
> people will be left at the bottom of the list.
> Links are being built up in the European
> Parliament between socialists and greens. I
> read that this has led to a statement from
> Party HQ that links of that kind would lead
> to disciplinary action. Compare this with the
> links with the Liberals, which are now
> formalised, even though they fought against
> Labour candidates because they are, dare I
> say it, a powerful anti-socialist force. The
> Liberals are admitted to the inner councils
> whereas the green movement, which has a
> socialist element, is to be excluded.
>
> In once sense, its the end of the Labour
> Party if PiP is carried. On the other hand,
> you cant stop dissent, debate, discussion,
> campaigning, and therefore I think that the
> life of the Party will go on but in a way that
> isnt directly connected to the Parliamentary
> leadership. It may be that in the end, as with
> MacDonald or George Brown or Roy
> Jenkins, that it is the leadership who move
> off. It would be a terrible tragedy if the
> response was to leave and move into
> sectarian politics. Arthur made a mistake.
> The Socialist Alliance got it wrong. There
> are too many socialist parties and not
> enough socialists. If people leave the
> Labour Party they are contributing to the
> process of handing it over to New Labour.
> If left MPs left the Labour Party it would
> delight the leadership. Im getting hundreds
> of letters saying Ive just left the Labour
> Party. I voted Labour for certain things
> which havent happened. Some may go
> into sectarian parties, but there is another,
> more threatening possibility that if people
> become absolutely disillusioned and feel that
> their votes on May 1st led to nothing, a
> swing to the right will occur. I do not believe
> that a New Labour enterprise, using the
> machinery of the Party, with the money of
> the Party, could really be able to prevent the
> Labour Party from performing its historic
> functions. The desires for jobs, homes,
> education, rights and racial equality are
> going to be there and will be expressed. I
> am an optimist.
>
> If you look at the world today you see
> appalling problems of despair, poverty and
> ill health. If there is a global market it just
> doesnt work. We must not allow a sense of
> doom to persuade us that there is no
> alternative. That was Mrs Thatchers most
> dangerous phrase. If we were to believe
> that now we would surrender everything to
> the establishment because people wouldnt
> try. People will have to try, but theyll only
> try if they think therell be success. Its
> rather like rebuilding the Party from the
> bottom up as we did in the 19th and early
> 20th centuries.
>
> This is not the end of the Labour Party, but
> the attempt to use the Labour Party as a
> foundation for building something new. You
> cant separate yourself from your roots. Its
> like a tree deciding to cut its roots and just
> grow upwards. The tree will collapse as
> we saw with the SDP. Many SDP ideas are
> reappearing through New Labour and
> theres always been a desire by the British
> establishment to build a party that had no
> links with the labour movement, no socialist
> convictions, no pride or knowledge of its
> history.
>
> Q: If these changes to the Labour Party
> democracy go through, youre suggesting that
> they can be reversed?
>
> A: Everything can be reversed. If you look
> at high hopes in 1985, look what happened
> to them. Its very easy, particularly if youre
> young, to think oh well, this is the end. If
> the Conference loses its vitality, which I
> think it may do, then life will begin on the
> fringes. Ive always thought for a long time
> that the fringe is in some ways more
> interesting than Conference. Maybe thats
> where the resolutions will be passed you
> cant stop resolutions being passed at fringe
> meetings. But Im not suggesting a new
> party.
>
> Roy Hattersley has just written a book
> called Fifty Years On. On its last page he
> says the prophets of New Labour
> succeeded where the Militant Tendency had
> failed, they took over and established a
> political party and recreated it in their own
> image. The panache with which they
> operated was breathtaking. And they
> created an election machine which fought a
> brilliant, single-minded campaign, but the
> ideas which had inspired a century of
> democratic socialism were ruthlessly
> discredited. I wouldnt want to be
> separated from the man who wrote that,
> even though in many ways, when he was
> with Neil Kinnock, he pioneered some of
> the changes that have led to New Labour.
> But hes not a part of New Labour, and
> neither am I.
>
> The only circumstances in which it is
> possible to imagine a new political formation
> would be if two things occur. A formal
> coalition and proportional representation.
> Proportional representation would
> undoubtedly restructure the British political
> system. But even so I wouldnt want to find
> socialists fighting each other in separate
> socialist parties. I see the Labour Party
> standing against the coalition Government as
> it did during the 30s and that led to the
> landslide.
>
> Q: Thats almost like arguing for Real
> Labour candidates.
>
> A: Well yes, I dont like these phrases
> new, old, real. I am a member of the
> Labour Party! I joined it in 1943 and I
> would like to die in it. There is a very strong
> cultural and historical attachment to Labour,
> which I feel very strongly. Id be very sorry
> as far as Members of Parliament are
> concerned. I dont think its going to be
> possible to vote for things you dont believe
> in particularly those which werent in the
> manifesto like tuition fees or cuts in single
> parent allowance or some complete
> restructuring of the welfare state.
>
> Pressure can be brought and historically
> has been brought from within the Labour
> Party upon the Labour Government. That
> process lit a very important flame which is
> still burning. There are lots of people about
> who if they thought there was a chance of
> things being done would pour back into the
> Party with commitment unlike some of
> the New Labour recruits who join on a
> direct debit basis. I dont think many of
> them are likely to remain if things go wrong.
> They didnt join with commitment. Some of
> this new membership will fade away when
> the going gets rough, which it will. So this
> story is by no means over.
>
>
>
>:==================================================
>: Labour Left Briefing is an independent voice and
>: forum for socialist ideas in the Labour Party and
>: trade unions. Labour Left Briefing is on line
>: at:
>: http://www.labournet.org.uk/llb/
>:
>: The LLB links page has links to labour movement
>: and socialist sites around the globe and is at:
>:
>: http://www.labournet.org.uk/llb/links/
>:
>: Annual subscriptions (10 issues): #14 ordinary,
>: #20 supporting sub, #30 outside UK
>: Cheques payable to *Labour Left Briefing*
>: If you would like to take copies to sell please
>: contact LLB at the address(s) below:-
>: LLB, PO Box 2378, London, E5 9QU
>: E-mail: llb-AT-gn.apc.org
>: ==================================================
>
>
>
--- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005