Liberal-Tories Planned To Snatch Milk From Babies

According to BBC News Reports, the Liberal-Tories had proposed to scrap free school milk for under 5's. Free milk was introduced in 1940, at a time when Britain was at War, and under siege from Nazi Germany. Despite the fact that Britain was able to provide it, under those conditions, the Liberal-Tories claimed that Britain, today, under their economic guardianship, could not afford it! The measure was introduced and retained, because of the importance, for young children, of getting sufficient Calcium, to avoid health problems such as rickets. When Thatcher previously scrapped free school milk, in deprived areas of Britain, rickets and similar diseases saw an increase.

The Liberal-Tories claimed that the measure had only been something for consideration, but, as the BBC report shows, it was much more than that. What is interesting is that the Liberal-Tories caved on the measure so quickly. It shows that, unlike the Thatcher Government, of 1979 onwards, this Government is very weak. That is the case for several reasons. In 1979, Thatcher came to power at a time when there had been a stalemate in the class struggle, that had lasted for nearly ten years. The post-war Long Wave boom had begun to falter in the late 60's, and by 1974, resulted in the Slump, as it came to an end. Capital had attempted to throw the full weight of the crisis on to workers, but workers militancy, built up in the preceding 25 years, was enough to frustrate those plans. It was a classic example, of Marx's comments in "Value, Price and Profit", about workers only being able to slow down the pace of the attacks upon them, of being able to only deal with the effects not the causes of the problem, so long as they remained on the ground of Trade Union struggle. Without, any kind of political strategy, or leadership capable of evincing such a strategy, again as Marx says, ultimately Capital would impose itself. That was the role that Capital assigned to Thatcher, and the measures she introduced were designed to destroy the ability of the working-class to resist. They were measures that were part of a well-designed strategy that had the backing not just of the Tories in Parliament, but of Capital out in Civil Society, and of the Capitalist State. That is why they were able to push through those measures.

The Liberal-Tory Government, on the other hand, has come to power in the middle of a new Long Wave boom. The effects of that on building new working-class militancy are to be seen more in those areas where that boom has been most dynamic, where Capital Accumulation has been greatest, in China and Asia, which has seen entire new Labour Movements emerge, and is witnessing militant, offensive action by workers in China.
But, it has also seen a development of workers confidence and organisation elsewhere. In the face of attacks, French workers and students have organised widespread resistance. Similar movements have arisen in Greece, and Southern Europe in the face of austerity measures. We will see how much workers resist in Britain.

But, there is another difference. In 1979, the Long Wave decline had begun. Keynesian Demand Management measures had failed, resulting only in stagflation. The solutions for Capital were limited. First workers resistance had to be crushed, then profits had to be restored. Having achieved the first, with the defeat of the Miners in 1984, the Tories set about the second, by adopting Monetarist policies to push up the Money Supply as a means of increasing economic activity, and nominal prices. Measures such as the sale of Council Houses, privatisation, and the removal of all credit controls and regulations, facilitated that increased Money Supply getting out into the economy. The resultant boom raised profits, and created the psychology of borrow and spend that dominated the following 25 years.

But, that is not true today. The Liberal-Tory policies of austerity are contrary to the interests of Capital, in the context of a Long Wave boom. The downturn is merely a blip within that boom, and, for that reason, it is in the interests of Capital to cut that blip as short as possible, by using Keynesian stimulus, as the US and other economies are doing. Capital, knows it can easily pay that back out of the growth that will follow for the next decade or so. Unnecessarily creating, what could be, a serious recession now, will not only destroy Capital, it will eat into the potential period of profit making. At least, the bigger, more intelligent, more international sections of Capital know that. The problem is that the Tories got elected by appealing to their core base within the ranks of the petit-bourgeoisie, and the small Capitalists, whose vision is far more restricted to their own backyard. Having stooped to win that vote with their right-wing populism - for example, their anti-immigration stance, their anti-EU stance such as joining up with the fascists and nut jobs in the European Parliament - they now find themselves having to accommodate its wishes rather than the needs of the dominant sections of Capital.

Those interests are instead being represented through Capital's permanent representatives in the State. Already, the permanent State bureaucracy is organising a rearguard action to defend the interests of Capital against the policies of the Liberal-Tories. A drip, drip of news stories is fed out about coppers disappearing off the streets, military budgets having to be slashed so that the countries defence will be impaired, and so on. Those strike to the heart of the prejudices of those backwoods Tories. But, the Capitalist State has a million ways to frustrate the measures proposed by a Government that is threatening the interests of Capital. Important documents can go missing, or be left on a train or in a cab, embarrassing the Government; CD's and DVD's can get lost in the post; information can be leaked to the press; Ministers can be given faulty information to present, which undermines their position; and the connections between the state bureaucracy, and the other branches of the extended State's ideological arm, in the media can ensure that a web is constructed that paints a picture of the Government as incompetent, extreme or whatever the chosen message might be that best undermines it. At the moment these measures are being used to curtail the Liberal-Tory excesses in cratering the economy, and the left should recognise those divisions and exploit them, but it is also a warning not to underestimate the power of this State were any kind of a Left-wing Government to be elected.

The Liberal-Tories also face another problem that contributes to their weakness, and that is precisely that they are Liberal-Tories. Thatcher was able to rule with a rod of iron, and a handbag because of the conditions set out above, because the ruling class was lined up behind her, and because its State stood ready to implement her politics with the full might of the State, including its bodies of armed men, but also because she ruled over a fairly united Party, and because those "Dictatorial" aspects of the British Constitution, referred to by Lord Hailsham, when he spoke about it being an "elected Dictatorship", that is the power of the Prime Minister to choose her own Government, to call elections at the time of her choosing, her power of patronage etc., gave her immense power over Tory MP's.

The Liberals are characterised by their rank Opportunism. But, its necessary to distinguish between elected Liberal representatives, the rank and file, and Liberal voters. As far as the Liberal MP's are concerned, their Opportunism and careerism reigns supreme. Even the "Left" Liberal MP's like Simon Hughes, if they had a shred of principle would have walked away from this lash-up from the beginning. They won't until they see an advantage for themselves in doing so. For now, apparently, these "Left" Liberals are quite happy to be part of a Government in alliance with fascists and nut jobs. The majority of Liberal Councillors fall into the same category, as their many alliances with right-wing Tories in Council Chambers up and down the country has demonstrated. A few are not, and a significant number of Liberal activists do not come under that category - gullible, however, maybe. And, it is quite clear that a large number of Liberal voters, are similarly gullible people, frequently young, petit-bourgeois, whose attraction to the Liberals was skin-deep, and superficial. The Liberals pushed a few "right-on" buttons, on the environment, multi-culturalism, and so on, and they responded like Pavlov's dogs. For the same reason they are abandoning the Liberals in droves. Labour Party membership has risen by 30,000 since the election, and a third of those are former Liberal activists. As I said after the election, the Liberals have committed Hari Kiri. Their electoral base is all but destroyed, and the dynamic of the coalition means that ultimately, the Orange Book wing will merge with the Tories, and the rest will either disappear or join Labour.

But, this is just another fault line down which the weakness of the Liberal-Tory Government can be fractured. At the very least it means that they are hampered in the way they present their politics and how they proceed. The working-class has to exploit every weakness and division in their enemies, and create a new politics for itself that enhances its unity in opposition to them.