Rabbitte vs. Blair May 13, 2007
Posted by smiffy in British Labour Party, Irish Election 2007, Irish Labour Party, Irish Politics, Labour Party.trackback
I don’t know if it was covered anywhere else, but today’s Observer carries an odd story about Pat Rabbitte, written by his erstwhile comrade Henry McDonald.
According to the piece, Rabbitte is ‘furious’ with Tony Blair for inviting Bertie Ahern to address the Houses of Parliament next Tuesday.
Rabbitte says the leader of his sister party in the UK has handed a propaganda coup to his main opponent. ‘Our quibble is not with Bertie Ahern; it is with Tony Blair. You can’t blame Mr Ahern for taking the opportunity to seize some good publicity,’ said Rabbitte. ‘It was a very unfraternal gesture from the leader of our sister party in Britain.
Now, it’s hard to know how serious Rabbitte is being. He has, in the past, displayed a propensity for overestimating his own wit and making what seem to be attempts at wry, off-the-cuff comments that completely fall flat. He’s nowhere near as funny as he thinks he is, and the fact that he’s treated like some kind of latter-day Fox or Burke is simply a sad reflection on the standard of political debate. I hope, for his sake, that he’s got his tongue lodged in his cheek on this one.
If not, however, it looks like a rather pointless and childish gesture. Firstly, I doubt very much if addressing the Houses of Parliament is going to enhance Ahern’s credibility to any significant degree, or that it would boost his, and his party’s electoral prospects (indeed, it might even serve to draw voters from the stupider fringes of his supporters towards Sinn Féin, although the numbers involved would be negligible).
Secondly, and more importantly, Rabbitte makes himself look like someone who finds it hard to distinguish between the business of government and the business of electioneering. Of course, one could make a strong case that foreign governments shouldn’t attempt to influence the outcome of elections in other countries (although I don’t recall Rabbitte voicing any objection when Angela Merkel announced her support for Fine Gael). However, the idea that the British government should take into account the interests of what is a pretty fringe member of the PES in the choreography and scheduling of Blair’s last month in power is, frankly, ludicrous. It achieves nothing other than making Rabbitte look like a child throwing its rattle from the pram in a fit of pique.
Further down the article, and even more interesting, are Rabbitte’s broader thoughts on Blair, and the New Labour project:
However, on the road between Kilcoole and Ashford in Co Wicklow on Friday, Rabbitte’s thoughts turned to what he saw as one of the positive aspects of Blairism and New Labour. ‘There are many things I disagreed with that Tony did, but the one thing I do share with him is the slogan “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”.’
Rejecting charges that Irish Labour’s libertarian tradition makes the party vulnerable to claims of being soft on criminals, Rabbitte said: ‘One of the main parts of the solution in our manifesto is more gardai on the streets. We need officers based in the community, out on their bikes and walking the beat. We have pledged that in power the alternative government [would] recruit thousands more community gardai.’
It’s intriguing to see that the one aspect of Blair’s nearly 15-year tenure as leader of the Labour Party that Rabbitte is drawn to (or, feels important to say that he’s drawn to) is a populist slogan about crime, and that he ignores the one part of that slogan that distinguishes the policy from that of any other centrist or centre-right party. Indeed, if I remember correctly, that slogan even predates Blair’s election to party leader.
While there’s ample scope for any critic of Blair to attack the policies, foreign and domestic, he’s implemented during his time in Downing Street, I think it’s rather telling that the leader of a supposedly progressive Irish political party would concentrate on crime as the one area where he has a meeting of minds with his UK counterpart. It would have been nice if Rabbitte had pointed to some of the undeniable achievements of the Blair years that Polly Toynbee writes about in her recent piece on the Blair legacy (reduction in child poverty, establishment of Sure Start centres, civil partnerships and a reinvigorated National Health Service). While she doesn’t ignore the undeniable failures of New Labour, Toynbee writes: “let no one diminish his social achievements that outshine every government since Attlee”.
Certainly tackling child poverty and social disadvantage aren’t the kind of topics that excite the columnists of the Sunday Independent, or the barstool wags in Doheny and Nesbitt’s, and it’s very hard to compress a comprehensive strategy to address them into a two-line addendum to an Ard-Fheis speech. It’s also worth bearing in mind that the relative strength of the British Labour Party compared to its Irish counterpart meant that it could always achieve far more in government than its Irish counterpart could ever dream of. I know too that there are a good number of people in the Irish Labour Party for whom issues like those Toynbee lists are vitally important and who would wish to address them as a priority in any future coalition.
However, seeing Rabbitte’s admiration for a slogan which was never much more than an attempt to be all things to all men, as well as his apparent complete acceptance of the tax-cutting agenda, I can’t help but wonder whether, with him, there are any real politics behind the witty remarks that grow increasingly stale.
“let no one diminish his social achievements that outshine every government since Attlee”
Well, except the 1964-70 government (comprehensive education, abolition of death penalty, legalisation of homosexuality and sundry other matters) and the 1974-79 government (sex discrimination and race relations acts). Not sure who established employment tribunals and the like (probably the first of these) and there’s plenty in either government’s record for a socialist to disagree with but really, Polly, do naff off.
Of course, one could make a strong case that foreign governments shouldn’t attempt to influence the outcome of elections in other countries (although I don’t recall Rabbitte voicing any objection when Angela Merkel announced her support for Fine Gael).
The interesting thing about that, is that it happens in nearly every European election at the moment. It is only because FF can get no political party of merit to endorse them, that it is considered unusual over here.
[...] Limerick Blogger casts his eye over Limerick West. Smiffy over at CLR ponders about Rabitte versus Blair. A visitor to Ireland, Borweg thinks that Gerry Adams posters make him [...]
EJH is pretty much correct about Toynbee’s comparisons.
Toynmbee remember is one of the people who joined the SDP in the 1980s and her politics have remained much the same ever since. She looks like a “left” supporter of Blair, Brown and Co. only because New Labour has travelled so far to the right that they have passed even Toynbee out.
It’s the same process that made Roy Hattersley, a Labour Party arch-right winger into a left critic of Blair. Just by standing still as the Labour Party marched past him he ended up on the other wing of the party.
Toynbee’s Blair apologetics should never be taken at face value. Her entire approach is based around painting New Labour neo-liberalism a pale shade of pink. Only she could describe New Labour piecemeal privatisation of the NHS as a “reinvigoration” with a straight face.
Anyone specualting on what will happen to Pat if the elections don’t work and he is not part of a government? His attempts to be the Oscar Wilde of political discourse are wearing very thin. Did you see him last week recycling Charlie Haughey’s old joke about the ‘Labour party always wrestling with its consience and always winning etc….’? ‘McDowell is so far up Berie’s anorak’…hilarious. Not. Liz McManus was not particuarly impressive at the INO conference either. Is there a spark of class anger left in these people? Were they ever really in the WP?
Know what you mean. There is a massive complacency at work there. Perhaps, it’s a result of simply being in the process too long. But it does seem daft..
As for Toynbee, in fairness joining the SDP in the 1980s, and then leaving it wasn’t an entirely irrational act. From where you stand, and indeed to some degree where I stand, it’s wasn’t exactly the best move ever, but I think in fairness her broad analysis isn’t entirely off, particularly when you contrast it with the dominance of conservatism in the 1980s and early 1990s. There were gains under Blair, but they were hidden and ignored for fear of upsetting the middle class vote. And slightly tangentially I’d always consider that Blair by pushing an agenda which increased the federal aspect of the UK did us all a favour.
The point about Toynbee is not that she was in the SDP but that she is wrong. No doubt the reason she is wrong is that she has to exaggerate the achievements of the Blair government because she does not wish to give ground to the left, but never mind that: the point is that on a straight comparison between the government that’s been there since 1997 and the government of 1964-70, the latter’s record of social reform is far superior. In the reform of law, in the protection of the weak, in rights for employees or what you will. One need neither exaggerate the record of the Wilson government, nor decry the record of the Blair government, to make this case: it makes itself.
The problem is that Blair won the 97 election after 19 years of Tory rule-years that saw the decisive end of the post-war concensus in Britain a concensus destroyed by Thatcher-would it have really been possible for Labour to win in 1997, 2001, 0r 2005 by parrotting a return to extensive nationalisation, extended union rights unilateral disarmament etc etc? highly doubtful. One might well prefer the politics of Wilson to Blair (but even Wilson was declared a sell-out to socialism at the time) but let’s not blind ourselves to acknowledging the road Labour had to travel to ensure electability. And as for progressive politics-lifting over a quarter of a million children out of poverty, Devolution, strengthening gay rights and the NI peace process stand with anything achieved by the Wilson govts.
Rabbite and McManus etc are merely confirming what old Tom MacGiolla said about them the other week. His bleating about fraternal greetings etc is plainly ludicrous but might hold a bit of water if he actually came from the Labour movement instead of being someone who jumped ship from the (Shhhhh!) Official Republican movement/WP his spiritual home for many years.
He might at least have said that Blair did a few things for peace in Ireland, but then Pat was a member of a Party with an invisible army that he claims to never have known a thing about (!)
“And as for progressive politics-lifting over a quarter of a million children out of poverty, Devolution, strengthening gay rights and the NI peace process stand with anything achieved by the Wilson govts”
Well, they don’t really. Strengthening gay rights, for instance, is not really as great an achievement as legalising homsexuality, is it? Not as substantial and not remotely as brave.
As I recall the Wilson government used to extend social secutiry rather than engage in welfare reform, too. It’s not chalk and cheese but it’s not far off.
As far as electability is concerned – I think most Labour people felt that Labour had to move a certain extent, be that right or wrong. It doesn’t follow that most of what happened in terms of that movement was necessary. If it were, the Party would not have ended up losing vast numbers of members and being fillwed to the brim with careerists mostly distinguishable by hostility to the traditriohs and principles of the Party, their sole loyalty being to the leader. It’s one thing understanding that you need to get elected and quite another to become a shell of party whose representatives care only for their careers. What a lousy bunch they are.
I can agree with some of your arguments. I concede your point on homosexuality legislation-the Wilson governments clearly did some progressive things, however they lurched from one crisis to another and ultimately failed paving the way for 19 years of Tory reaction. And if it’s a choice between the internecine strife and rancorous indiscipline of the 1970s and 80s as against the successful hegemonic gradualism and electoral brilliance of Blair – I know which I prefer.
If you had told me in 1996 that in the next decade we would have experienced near full employment, lowest interest rates in 40 years, serious inroads into poverty and into cancelling 3rd world debt, a minimum wage, enhanced equality rights as well as devolution and Paisley and Adams sitting down together I simply would not have believed you.
It’s also difficult to say what parts of the old Labour agenda could or should have been retained – indeed one could argue that the fact that Labour went so far in such a direction actually accounted for the massive electoral majorities (as getting rid of that agenda was enormously popular) in that it convinced the public that Labour was electable and serious. In 1994/95 as a Labour activist I was vehemently against the revision of clause 4, but gradually I came to believe that as it was just rhetoric it had to change.
On the issue of losing Party members –this is undeniable -however as an activist in 3 CLPs in the last decade my view is that in the main those who left were armchair members the extent of whose activism consisted in merely carrying a party card. Oh – and there were probably some Trots who floated off into even further irrelevance. This has hardly left the Labour Party a “shell”.
Whether careerism is more of a problem for Labour than other parties is debatable-I do know that the vast majority of Labour MPs and councillors I’ve known at close quarters were not motivated by personal interest but actually displayed admirable qualities that included promoting the public good and serving the electorate.