Some people baffle me. I cannot understand their naïveté and inability to see the division in our society. It is as though they have been cloistered in the arms of the Telegraph for too long.
Now I admit I rather set myself up for this anyway. I am a fairly frequent participant in comments on the Westminster blog on the Financial Times website. Not the most socialist of sites I would agree, but I have long held there is little point in contributing to left wing sites as you are already speaking to the converted.
Anyway, in a recent debate about higher education we began discussing the lack of accessibility of places like Oxford and Cambridge to working class people. Needless to say my vitriol against “the system” was frowned on by one contributor, who I am convinced sees me as some kind of representation of the Devil himself.
Here are some of his comments:
I knew a lot of working-class boys who went to Oxford so I see no reason why I should be shouted down by someone who doesn't know what he is talking about and chooses to rant about something I have never said. As well as providing scholarships, which now provide pretty nominal amounts of money and significant prestige to the most academically gifted undergraduates, Oxford provides generous bursaries to the poorest undergraduates. Tacitus is displaying either ignorance or bigotry by claiming that his children cannot afford to go there. The doors are *more* open to decent working class kids than to those of the upper or middle-class *provided, of course, that they have the ability to benefit from the course*.
There are a few rich kids but they have always been untypical and there is an active trade in second-hand textbooks. He seems to have completely changed his line from "poorer kids cannot get in" to "my kids don't want to get in".
I object to being so utterly misrepresented: I said that it was not the fault of Oxford but of the comprehensive school system created by Labour pushed and egged-on by The Guardian that there was inequality of opportunity - Tacitus alleges that I "sit there pontificating about how there is equality and all you have to do is work hard" - what utter tripe. Perhaps that is because he feels sensitive to my comment "the barrier is less social class than parental attitude to education". When I was 17 I thought that education was more important than "a few beers of a night and the chance to meet lots of girls.”
I can't be sure how old Tacitus is but looking at his blog I suspect that he started secondary school *after* I started complaining about the disadvantages imposed on bright working-class kids by the replacement of grammar and secondary tech schools by comprehensives.
The increase in gross inequality in the UK is down to New Labour and I am on record complaining about this for several years. I am not blaming Tacitus - Mapam is reckoned to be nearer Scargill's SWP than New Labour, but there is absolutely no reason to blame *me* for it nor to imply that I sympathise with it.
Sounds like I hit a nerve.
Needless to say, I couldn’t let this go, so this was my reply:
Your responses would be amusing if they were not so scary in their inaccuracy and your comment "I know a lot of working class boys who went to Oxford" rather demonstrates your naïveté. Of course you will find a few token working class kids allowed through the system - otherwise the broader working class would realise they were being stifled. By allowing just a few in you keep open a dream that maybe, just maybe, if you are really lucky and they don't pay too much attention to your accent you will get in.
You argue that Oxford offers generous bursaries - in fact these are only of £3,200 per year. Now, with annual fees of £9,000 there is already a £6,000 differential before a working class kid even walks through the door. On top of this is accommodation. Some will live in College at a cost of £3,700 (already £500 over the bursary fee) but many will be forced to live outside in private accommodation. The University itself recommends students budget over £6,000 for this. Then of course are the day to day costs and the University very conservatively recommends students budget a further £1,850 a year. This would mean that each year a student will be in debt to the tune of £13,650 a year, assuming they stay strictly on budget, only return home once each term and keep social life to a minimum.
You say the doors are more open to working class kids than to middle class ones, yet only 11.5% of students identify themselves as working class. Hardly a true representation of society.
As for the very weak and exceedingly old chestnut of "it's all New Labour's fault" - get real. The division between classes has been going on at Oxford for years - long before 1997 when New Labour came to power. If anything, there was a minimal increase in the number of working class students during the period.
You say that at 17 you were more interested in education than going out with girls and drinking beer - well bully for you John., because so was I. Except I had to leave school and work for ten years so I could afford to go to university. I didn't have the luxury of being able to put financial considerations to one side.
As for mention of the now defunct Mapam I raise two points. Firstly, what on earth has an Israeli left wing party of the 1980s got to do with our argument? Secondly, for your information Arthur Scargill is, and never was a member of the Socialist Worker Party. He formed a separate organisation called the Socialist Labour Party. Perhaps your other 'facts' are equally well researched thus leading to naive and bigoted analysis.
Well one thing is for sure – I may not have converted a Tory, but I sure as hell gave him a sleepless night, because his response to me came at 2.55am!!
Oh I do love upsetting right-wingers. No doubt he will make some typically naïve response, but isn’t it disturbing that there are still people in this country who think this way. Clearly there remains much to do to educate people about the extent of division in our society.
Showing posts with label New Labour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Labour. Show all posts
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
Why the "New Labour" project failed
Since Ed Miliband’s election as leader of the Labour Party, I have been reflecting on why the membership has so readily walked away from the “New Labour” project and why the electorate failed to support Gordon Brown last May.
Both Blair and Brown tried to present a model of politics they described as being both left and liberal in its leaning, but in reality, it was neither. In 1997, Tony Blair presented Labour’s election programme and put forward the ideals of equal opportunity, social justice and national renewal.
After a long period of Tory government, led first by Thatcher and then John Major, these felt like a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, by 2010 the mood had changed and the New Labour approach appeared technocratic and uninspiring. Indeed, when Gordon Brown stood on the platform during the leadership debates, he sounded like a man bereft of original ideas.
The facts are that New Labour’s social policies stemmed from
their economic model for moving Britain forward. Blair, and later Brown believed incentives, accurate and well-planned commissioning and effective communication exchange could bring about a social revolution in this country. As part of this, Brown, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer held that finance capital and the banks were the key, because they were the best-informed agents for supplying ‘stability with growth’ for the national economy.
This meant that the substance of public policies were based on these economic principles. Thus, plans for modernization and expansion of public services collapsed when the banking crisis emerged, alongside a broad public lack of confidence in Blair’s passion for target-setting and clear regulations.
As Professor Bill Jordan has argued, the same theory which prescribed a “light touch and a limited touch” for the oversight of the banks had also laid down the detailed structures – the NHS trusts, strategic authorities, inspection bodies, outcome measures, standards and funding principles – for the public sector. As a result, central government amassed the information, designed the incentives and sanctions and defined the contracts under which its policies were planned in order to produce socially desirable results.
As a system that operated impersonally through abstract economic forces, it neither required, nor sought the involvement, or loyalty of staff and service users. The notion put forward by New Labour under their Patient’s/ Citizen’s/ Parent’s Charter that service users should be engaged in delivery was only true to a point – their input was only of merit if it confirmed the planning and strategic aims of the existing structures, where it differed, it became a nuisance. As a result, even New Labour’s achievements often went unappreciated, whilst its mechanistic processes were broadly rejected and its failings deplored.
It was only a matter of time before this weakness in the New Labour project would be exploited. The heavy swing to Labour in 1997 crumbled almost as soon as it achieved power and continued through the 2001 and 2005 elections. By 2010, defeat was inevitable, but was enhanced by the Tories ability to identify New Labour’s shortcomings and offer an attractive alternative. This, coupled with a charismatic leader with the ability to ‘work the media’, meant the Tories were riding high on a wave of success. Their proposal to take power away from the state and switch it to the individual and communities achieved mass support in an electorate tired of hearing the ‘newspeak’ of performance standards and fed up of living in a climate where policies emerged out of needs assessments and risk analyses. When the Tories spoke of the “bonfire of the quangos”, they reached the hearts and minds of the electorate.
Even public servants working in the system were unconvinced by the arguments put forward by New Labour strategists like David Miliband, Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson. Most felt disconnected from the human nature of their services. Scandals such as the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Hospital Trust that led to unnecessary deaths and poor standards of care, showed that ordinary compassion and basic professional standards had been sacrificed for the attainment of lucrative Foundation status, and inspections (despite having clearly defined guidelines) failed to identify lapses in patient care.
In the end, the New Labour project showed little or no sensitivity to the moral and ethical features that sustain good practice, focusing instead on implementing “evidence-based methods through electronic record-keeping and assessing “quality standards” against official checklists. The result was that a party once dedicated to the social welfare of the working class was now governing a society where empathy, creativity and imagination were attitudes of the past.
Cameron cleverly recognized this and promised public servants that, if elected, he would give them more autonomy and the discretion to ‘use their judgment’. It proved popular. He then told the electorate he wanted to see a culture where public servants would be more accountable to service users. In advocating the creation of the Big Society, Cameron was calling for new and existing community organizations to assist in the formation of groups to support people at a local level. As part of this, he extended New Labour’s “Rights and Responsibilities” agenda by arguing that if we were to repair Broken Britain, it would need a new volunteer army who accepted that as citizens they would need to take responsibility for rebuilding local communities.
Under New Labour, citizenship had been viewed quite differently and had been defined as a contract between the individual and the state and sustained through the former’s independence and self-responsibility. In this analysis, ethical goals such as distributive equity (including the redistribution of wealth), social well-being and sustainable lifestyles were not the responsibility of each individual, but the state and it was the duty of government to manipulate the framework to bring about the best outcomes.
New Labour by the end was blinkered and unwilling to hear any opposition. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggesting the electorate saw UK society as too individualistic was largely ignored. Instead, the government breached some of the most sacred cows of modern socialism and imposed greater levels of surveillance, more sanctions and restrictions of civil rights and attacks on the most disadvantaged members of society.
In the end, New Labour was consigned to the garbage bin of history and Cameron and the Tories were elected. Significantly, the Tories failed to deliver on almost all of their election pledges – replacing them with some of the most austere measures this country has seen for a generation. A mass movement is building that is angry and determined to stand against the Tories and their allies, the Lib Dems. Most of this opposition is coming from people with little or no allegiance to the Labour Party. Indeed, the majority have, for reasons mentioned above, good reason not to trust the Labour Party – some will feel let down, others will have no history of associating the party with radicalism and militancy.
The coming months will be critical - Labour could easily opt for continuing along the social democratic path laid out by Blair, Mandelson, Miliband and the rest of the ‘old school’. If they choose this route there is a probability Labour will not be in power for years. The bitterness it will leave amongst activists, coupled with the lack of trust for the leadership will guarantee the party remains on the opposition benches.
Alternatively, the Party can look inside itself and rediscover its socialist roots. It will require rigorous honesty and a willingness to accept the New Labour project was, in many respects, a mistake. More importantly, it will mean redefining the goals and philosophy that will drive the party forward. In this respect, the Labour Representation Committee will have a critical role in rebuilding the party. However, it will mean forming alliances with other socialist groups – something the hard left has historically been poor at. It will also mean developing a far more media friendly face to attract new supporters. In both thee areas the hard left has a long way to go.
It’s all very well marching alongside comrades at demonstrations, or applauding loudly at left-wing conferences, but we have to take things to a whole new level. We have to win the hearts and minds of the vast majority of party members and extend it to establish a major political force amongst the electorate.
No-one ever said the path to socialism would be easy.
Both Blair and Brown tried to present a model of politics they described as being both left and liberal in its leaning, but in reality, it was neither. In 1997, Tony Blair presented Labour’s election programme and put forward the ideals of equal opportunity, social justice and national renewal.
After a long period of Tory government, led first by Thatcher and then John Major, these felt like a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, by 2010 the mood had changed and the New Labour approach appeared technocratic and uninspiring. Indeed, when Gordon Brown stood on the platform during the leadership debates, he sounded like a man bereft of original ideas.The facts are that New Labour’s social policies stemmed from
their economic model for moving Britain forward. Blair, and later Brown believed incentives, accurate and well-planned commissioning and effective communication exchange could bring about a social revolution in this country. As part of this, Brown, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer held that finance capital and the banks were the key, because they were the best-informed agents for supplying ‘stability with growth’ for the national economy.This meant that the substance of public policies were based on these economic principles. Thus, plans for modernization and expansion of public services collapsed when the banking crisis emerged, alongside a broad public lack of confidence in Blair’s passion for target-setting and clear regulations.
As Professor Bill Jordan has argued, the same theory which prescribed a “light touch and a limited touch” for the oversight of the banks had also laid down the detailed structures – the NHS trusts, strategic authorities, inspection bodies, outcome measures, standards and funding principles – for the public sector. As a result, central government amassed the information, designed the incentives and sanctions and defined the contracts under which its policies were planned in order to produce socially desirable results.
As a system that operated impersonally through abstract economic forces, it neither required, nor sought the involvement, or loyalty of staff and service users. The notion put forward by New Labour under their Patient’s/ Citizen’s/ Parent’s Charter that service users should be engaged in delivery was only true to a point – their input was only of merit if it confirmed the planning and strategic aims of the existing structures, where it differed, it became a nuisance. As a result, even New Labour’s achievements often went unappreciated, whilst its mechanistic processes were broadly rejected and its failings deplored.
It was only a matter of time before this weakness in the New Labour project would be exploited. The heavy swing to Labour in 1997 crumbled almost as soon as it achieved power and continued through the 2001 and 2005 elections. By 2010, defeat was inevitable, but was enhanced by the Tories ability to identify New Labour’s shortcomings and offer an attractive alternative. This, coupled with a charismatic leader with the ability to ‘work the media’, meant the Tories were riding high on a wave of success. Their proposal to take power away from the state and switch it to the individual and communities achieved mass support in an electorate tired of hearing the ‘newspeak’ of performance standards and fed up of living in a climate where policies emerged out of needs assessments and risk analyses. When the Tories spoke of the “bonfire of the quangos”, they reached the hearts and minds of the electorate.
Even public servants working in the system were unconvinced by the arguments put forward by New Labour strategists like David Miliband, Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson. Most felt disconnected from the human nature of their services. Scandals such as the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Hospital Trust that led to unnecessary deaths and poor standards of care, showed that ordinary compassion and basic professional standards had been sacrificed for the attainment of lucrative Foundation status, and inspections (despite having clearly defined guidelines) failed to identify lapses in patient care.In the end, the New Labour project showed little or no sensitivity to the moral and ethical features that sustain good practice, focusing instead on implementing “evidence-based methods through electronic record-keeping and assessing “quality standards” against official checklists. The result was that a party once dedicated to the social welfare of the working class was now governing a society where empathy, creativity and imagination were attitudes of the past.
Cameron cleverly recognized this and promised public servants that, if elected, he would give them more autonomy and the discretion to ‘use their judgment’. It proved popular. He then told the electorate he wanted to see a culture where public servants would be more accountable to service users. In advocating the creation of the Big Society, Cameron was calling for new and existing community organizations to assist in the formation of groups to support people at a local level. As part of this, he extended New Labour’s “Rights and Responsibilities” agenda by arguing that if we were to repair Broken Britain, it would need a new volunteer army who accepted that as citizens they would need to take responsibility for rebuilding local communities.
Under New Labour, citizenship had been viewed quite differently and had been defined as a contract between the individual and the state and sustained through the former’s independence and self-responsibility. In this analysis, ethical goals such as distributive equity (including the redistribution of wealth), social well-being and sustainable lifestyles were not the responsibility of each individual, but the state and it was the duty of government to manipulate the framework to bring about the best outcomes.
New Labour by the end was blinkered and unwilling to hear any opposition. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggesting the electorate saw UK society as too individualistic was largely ignored. Instead, the government breached some of the most sacred cows of modern socialism and imposed greater levels of surveillance, more sanctions and restrictions of civil rights and attacks on the most disadvantaged members of society.
In the end, New Labour was consigned to the garbage bin of history and Cameron and the Tories were elected. Significantly, the Tories failed to deliver on almost all of their election pledges – replacing them with some of the most austere measures this country has seen for a generation. A mass movement is building that is angry and determined to stand against the Tories and their allies, the Lib Dems. Most of this opposition is coming from people with little or no allegiance to the Labour Party. Indeed, the majority have, for reasons mentioned above, good reason not to trust the Labour Party – some will feel let down, others will have no history of associating the party with radicalism and militancy.
The coming months will be critical - Labour could easily opt for continuing along the social democratic path laid out by Blair, Mandelson, Miliband and the rest of the ‘old school’. If they choose this route there is a probability Labour will not be in power for years. The bitterness it will leave amongst activists, coupled with the lack of trust for the leadership will guarantee the party remains on the opposition benches.
Alternatively, the Party can look inside itself and rediscover its socialist roots. It will require rigorous honesty and a willingness to accept the New Labour project was, in many respects, a mistake. More importantly, it will mean redefining the goals and philosophy that will drive the party forward. In this respect, the Labour Representation Committee will have a critical role in rebuilding the party. However, it will mean forming alliances with other socialist groups – something the hard left has historically been poor at. It will also mean developing a far more media friendly face to attract new supporters. In both thee areas the hard left has a long way to go.
It’s all very well marching alongside comrades at demonstrations, or applauding loudly at left-wing conferences, but we have to take things to a whole new level. We have to win the hearts and minds of the vast majority of party members and extend it to establish a major political force amongst the electorate.
No-one ever said the path to socialism would be easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
