Three things,
in particular, strike me about the situation.
Firstly, it
exposes the obvious, but generally denied, fact that the Labour Party is no
longer a party which espouses a set of ideals and aims to build a society based
around them; it is in fact a group of people who seek to win elections in order
to gain political power for themselves. It isn’t about
progressive ideals, whatever the founding principles (and some deluded members)
of the party might say, it’s about one particular bunch of ‘professional’ politicians
gaining power, and being prepared to say and do whatever they think will
achieve that aim.
It’s a point
which some of those in Wales spouting on about ‘progressive alliances’ would do
well to remember. The differences of
opinion which the statement by the party’s leader have exposed are not, in most
cases, differences about what is right; they’re more a case of disagreement
about the best way of achieving that narrower objective of winning power (or, even
more narrowly in some cases, winning the party leadership).
Secondly, the later
retraction by the acting leader who said that the final policy will be decided
by the new leader exposes how undemocratic the Labour Party has become. The members can choose a leader, but that is
the limit of their influence on policy.
Detailed policy will be decided at the whim of whoever they elect. And whilst there’s enough experience within
the party for them to know that what people will say in a leadership election
can turn out to be a very poor guide to what they’ll say afterwards, I’m sure
that for many members of that party, wishful thinking will continue to triumph
over hard experience.
And the third
thing is perhaps the most important of all - and not just for Labour. Any party which allows the limits of
political debate to be set by its opponents will eventually end up sounding
like little more than a poor copy of those opponents. The statement on not opposing welfare cuts
may be one of the crassest examples, but it’s far from being the only one. Think immigration for instance. On issue after issue, Labour has allowed the
Tories and their media friends to move the Overton window in one direction, and
has meekly accepted the result, when any seriously ‘progressive’ movement
would be trying to move it in the opposite direction.
For the UK, the
result is that the poorest and the dispossessed find themselves unrepresented, and those
opposing Government policies find themselves represented in parliament by an
opposition which seems disinclined to oppose.
And in Wales, the potential alternative opposition still seems to regard
it as inevitable that the UK’s unopposing opposition will remain the leading
political force with which they can, at best, hope to form some sort of
post-election alliance in the Assembly.
In the real world, it looks increasingly likely that the main
beneficiaries will be the Tories – and UKIP.
It isn’t a
pretty prospect.
Posts
1 comment:
A cynic would say the Tories and UKIP doing well in 2016 is part of Labour’s election strategy, welsh voters still fall for the ‘send Cameron as message by voting Labour’ line and when Labour emerges as the largest party but without an majority, Carwyn Jones and his coalition partners have ready made fall guys (UKIP & Tories)
He'll then spend the next 5 years deflecting criticism of Welsh Government interia by blaming nasty right wingers and pointing to their rise in Wales, while simultaneously avoiding any blame for eye watering cuts, massive increases in poverty and public sector pay freezes that will cripple Wales by 2021.
Post a Comment