07 May 1998
The dog that didn't bark
James Heartfield celebrated the first anniversary of the New Labour
government with Prime Minister Tony Blair's radical critics
Ninety Blair refuseniks attended the Observer conference 'Has New Labour
Made a Difference?' at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in central London
and decided that it was ... hard to say and too early to tell. Originally
billed as 'Labour's broken promises?' this was the gathering that
threatened to sour New Labour's anniversary celebrations, but didn't.
The conference opened to the backdrop of last year's election video - now
spookily triumphalist - and received a few titters from its gauche
confidence. But the first speaker was former spin-doctor Derek Draper, who
challenged all those present to consider whether they would have preferred
the Tories to win. After all, he reminded them, "Labour governments are not
there to build heaven on Earth, but to prevent hell on Earth". Meekly,
speakers from the floor complained of redundancies in third level
education, a failure on the part of the government to listen to women and
an unhealthy alliance with media baron Rupert Murdoch. Like a good
spin-doctor Draper was having none of it and gave them all short-shrift:
there have to be cuts somewhere, why wouldn't women be interested in
devolution and Murdoch did a good thing breaking the print unions anyway.
With a gulp, the audience took this new dispensation and moderated their
claims. Anthony Barnett, one-time director of the constitutional reform
group Charter 88, chided Draper to the effect that he was underselling New
Labour, whose great innovations in devolution would be topped only by
proportional representation. "Whatever grabs your fancy", said Draper
disdainfully, "personally constitutional reform leaves me cold, and who
said PR was more democratic?" Draper had been set up as an Aunt Sally to
draw out the critics, as he coyly indicated when he said that he was
surprised and flattered to be asked to open the conference, but it was a
manoeuvre that misfired: round one to the spin doctor.
An enduring theme of the conference was Tony Blair's 'populism'. Populism
is a bad thing. But popularity is good. Populism is defined as Blair saying
something popular with which the critics do not agree. It is curious
however that, whenever Blair does something to which the critics object, it
is the people who are to blame. "He's just playing to the gallery", they
hiss as New Labour enjoys a 29 point lead over the Conservatives. The
personal approval rating for Blair is a spectacular 72 per cent
(Telegraph/Gallup, 1 May 1998), so perhaps it is not surprising that his
radical critics are feeling as alienated from the people as they did when
they started calling Margaret Thatcher an 'authoritarian populist'.
Blair's authoritarian social agenda was wrong because it was populist,
explained veteran radical Bea Campbell. Melanie Phillips murmured with
approval, only objecting that the government did have to tell us all the
difference between right and wrong.
The sense of the radicals' alienation from the people was most profound in
its reaction to the Countryside Alliance, and its 250,000 strong
demonstration in defence of fox hunting. The Guardian's green columnist
George Monbiot and the Greater London Council veteran Hilary Wainwright,
now editor of Red Pepper, worked furiously to explain away the
demonstrators as tools of powerful financial interests. Fox-hunting
philosopher Roger Scruton was forced to protest against the charge of being
hoodwinked by toffs, in the poshest voice I have ever heard. Never has the
phrase 'false consciousness' been so beautifully pronounced. He was
replying to an unlikely hunt saboteur in advertising guru Peter York.
For a few months now Blair's radical critics in the liberal media have
intimated that they are unhappy with his government, and its supposed
'Third Way' between old-Labour and Conservatism. Writing on 26 April, Will
Hutton, whose newspaper sponsored this event, led the charge, saying "The
Third Way only disguises New Labour's emergence as a party that defends the
capitalist status quo". But as the anniversary approached, Blair weighed in
to crush his critics, writing in the Guardian "There is, as ever, a curious
coming together of critics left and right, about a modernised Labour
party". (1 May 1998) Duly warned that any sniping will be read as joining
the enemy camp, the critics kept their counsel, heaping praise on New
Labour's first year in all their columns.
The Observer's conference was to have been the rallying point for Blair's
critics, but then was successively down-scaled as the anniversary
approached. There is a need for an opposition to New Labour, but it is not
to be found amongst the radical left wing of the party, who owe too much to
Blair to really rock the boat. This was a case of a dog that did not bark.
Join a discussion on this commentary