Whither British politics?

THE years 2003-2004 have all the hallmarks of the beginning of a fundamental change in British politics. It can be argued that the seeds planted at the birth of New Labour have begun to bear fruit and new alignments have begun to emerge. It is, therefore, a good time to attempt a forecast for the future. One can even question the ability of the Labour Party to survive intact after so many of its basic principles have been abandoned or threatened, but circumspection is advisable.

Those of us with long political memories tend to look back at events of the past and expect history to repeat itself. It seldom does. Past experience may be of value when making forecasts for the future, but it must be accepted that people and their reactions to events are not consistent. Politics and politicians, never highly regarded, are now positively distrusted. In any case, few electors have any clue about what happened in the past. Nor do they care. While, therefore, one can compare recent events with those of yesteryear, it is unwise to draw too many conclusions or to make confident predictions.

It is not long since people had fairly clear and comparatively simple choices at elections. Did they want socialism and nationalisation or did they prefer capitalism and free enterprise? Now, the fundamental differences between the main parties are less apparent to the politically native--vital though they may be.

The Labour Party was created by the Trade Unions as their political wing. They have always regarded themselves as having the right to a say in policies when 'their' party is in office. Tony Blair and his 'New Labour', on the other hand, have recognised this is no longer practicable. As a result, Union leaders are unhappy and their dissatisfaction is made clear. That any Trade Union could ever be expelled from the Party was once unthinkable. Yet it has happened. The Rail, Maritime and Transport Union has been expelled for giving some money to a small 'socialist party'. The Fire Brigades are also making threats. The world is turning upside down! The opposition within the Labour Party to such heresies as foundation hospitals and university fees also point to a fundamental malaise.

The Unions have a vested interest in organisations such as the railways and the National Health Service. Present policies are harbingers of the demise of national wage agreements. Regional or, worse, local pay settlements lead to reduced influence for national union officers. The whole concept has to be opposed--if necessary with militance. The new atmosphere is politically awkward for this reason. The arrival on the scene of privately owned different railway operating companies has brought advantages for the work forces. Companies have begun to compete for staff. This has meant better pay, but difficulty for militants. Nevertheless, the appalling state of the railways caused by the inefficiencies of Railtrack and Network Rail have provided both Labour rank and file and the unions with an excuse for opposition to Government ideas on idealistic grounds.

The same thing applies in principle in the NHS. Hospital waiting lists and other complaints have given scope for dissatisfaction and resistance to any modernisation proposals.

The attitude of the unions has had an effect on many Labour MPs. Though few, today, come from the ranks of shop floor operatives, most have some kind of link to unions and their first loyalty is in that direction. They are also feeling the hot breath of grass root supporters which brings genuine concern for electoral consequences. In February a Blairite Labour MP was 'de-selected' by her local party in Reading. They simply cannot go along either, with the way Tony Blair led Britain into war over Iraq. They see him as having forgotten his principles and think he overdid the story of the weapons of mass destruction in order to get them into the right lobby. This was not the fundamental reason for war. Even so, if he had not concentrated on the threat as he did, he could not have secured a Labour majority for the action. On the other hand, he would not now be facing what might be his Nemesis. Whatever the eventual result of these present problems, Labour MPs feel let down. They are committed to their views over the war and this might well be the last straw. When a political party begins to worry over a point of basic principle, in-fighting is inevitable and splits widen. We have seen what happened to the Conservative Party when it divided over Europe. It lost two elections in 1997 and 2001.

Months ago, there were several Labour MPs calling for the resignation of their leader. That movement began to grow, but for a time, it was kept off the headlines by the plotting in the Tory Party against their leader Iain Duncan Smith. Now it is out in the open and Blair is seen to be mortal. Just as Harold Macmillan ceased to be 'Supermac' by 1963, so Blair is off his pedestal and his feet of clay are in full view with a vengeance. On 13 February this year, the Swiss newspaper Le Temps referred to 'Mr Blair's sunken cheeks and drawn features'. Comments from abroad of that kind are significant to say the least.