The only potential counter to that is that these six promises are so vapid, so meaningless, and lacking in ambition that even Starmer would be hard pressed not to be able to stick with them, but even that can't be relied on, such is the lack of credibility of the man, and his Blue Labour Party. After all, he won the leadership by committing to stick with the programme of Jeremy Corbyn, all of the elements of which were very popular with voters, according to every poll undertaken. Yet, within weeks of becoming Leader, Starmer started dropping them one by one, and went from being the champion of liberal Remainers, to being the arch Brexiter, distinguishable only from Boris Johnson by his desire to outflank him to the Right!
The six promises are:
Deliver Economic Stability
Cut NHS Waiting Times
Launch a new Border Security Command
Set Up Great British Energy
Crack Down On Anti-Social Behaviour
Recruit 6,500 Teachers
What a pathetic list. Where is the ambition in that, even compared with the pledges offered by Blair in 1997? The Blairites used to talk about “aspiration”, but there is no sense of aspiration in this list whatsoever. It basically expects workers to settle for a continuation of their lot of the last 15 years since the global financial crisis, let alone anything more aspirational. In terms of encouraging workers to vote for Labour it is hardly inspirational, is it? The Corbynite agenda that Starmer originally committed to, was itself, only the kind of routine social-democratic programme of a 1960's Wilson government, but even that was too much for Starmer, as he has collapsed into petty-bourgeois reactionary nationalism, as witnessed by his welcoming into the party of far-right Tory MP's, like Elphicke.
Let's take this flaccid list, and see just how limp it is. What does promise 1 even mean? It doesn't even commit to economic growth, which would require, the opposite of stability. Stability means accepting the current low level of economic activity, in other words, it is the stability of the graveyard. Let's be kind and assume that Starmer and Reeves do not actually mean stability, but mean economic growth without the drama, and wild swings, associated with the last few years of Tory government, as seen with Truss. But, then, this is meaningless too. They might as well say that they are promising that the weather will be stable and slightly better under a Labour government.
For it to mean anything, they would have to set out how they were going to ensure such stability and improvement, but they fail to do that. It is an “aspiration”, but a pretty timid one, and yet, still one they cannot guarantee. They can't guarantee it, because the growth of capitalist economies, and their stability, is largely outside the control of governments, particularly national governments, and even more so the governments of small, and declining nation states like that of Britain. Those national governments can certainly damage the growth of their economies, as for example, has occurred with Brexit, or as occurred with the Truss government's attempt to apply the petty-bourgeois ideology that lies behind Brexit, and brought down the wrath of the global ruling class, and its control of the financial markets upon it, but they cannot, conversely, aid the growth of those economies.
Moreover, what does such stability or economic growth itself mean? Stability and growth for the benefit of whom? If it means that the economy is “stable”, and “grows”, on the back of workers having to accept a continuation of their current condition, whilst, on the other side, profits continue to grow, and an increasing proportion of them is paid out as interest/dividends to shareholders, how is that of any benefit to workers, as against the interests of those speculators and other parasites, and so why would workers have any reason to vote for it?
The same is true of the second promise. Its pathetic, compared to Blair's promise to treble spending on the NHS, which he did, but which mostly went to benefit all those companies that built hospitals, supplied expensive equipment, as well as all of those highly paid NHS bureaucrats, whose empires expanded significantly, whilst the newly built hospitals couldn't function, because there was no funds to employ nurses! But, given that Starmer has adopted the programme of reactionary petty-bourgeois nationalism, and Brexit, how is this to be physically achieved, given that the NHS relies on foreign workers, doctors and nurses, coming to work in it, and since Brexit that supply of workers has been slashed?
Moreover, to achieve it would require much greater spending on the NHS, and yet, Starmer's first promise, and the refusal by him and Reeves to countenance any increase in either taxes or borrowing to finance additional spending, means that Blue Labour cannot increase spending to achieve any of these promises. The only other answer, apart from it being just another lie, is that they intend to impose even more on NHS workers, to work longer hours, for even less money! Again, why would workers vote for that?
The third promise is one that is, of course, fully consistent with Blue Labour's reactionary nationalist, Brexitory agenda. But, that agenda conflicts with both the first and second promises. If Blue Labour wants to promote economic growth and stability, the most effective means of that is to re-join the EU, and, at the very least, to re-join the Single Market and Customs Union at the earliest opportunity, including accepting all of the requirements for free movement and so on. But, Starmer's jingoistic, sovereigntist agenda, reflected in this promise, as he continues to appease the racists and bigots, stands four-square in opposition to a rapprochement with the EU. It is a thoroughly racist promise that seeks to place the blame for the problems of British capitalism, problems made worse by Brexit, on to foreigners and immigrants.
The promise to set up Great British Energy is likely to go the way of other such promises by Starmer. The name itself, is, again, a sop to the jingoists and petty-bourgeois nationalists. The only reason for thinking that Blue Labour might actually carry it out, as with the renationalisation of the railways, is that these industries are in such a dire and chaotic state, and there is widespread public support for such policies. Its likely that large sections of capital would be at best indifferent to such state ownership too.
In the EU, state ownership of utilities and railways is commonplace, and acts in the interests of capital in general. In fact, the shares of many of these companies, in Britain, are already owned by foreign state owned enterprises! But, as workers in the state sector are currently seeing, and as was seen in the state owned coal mines, in the 1980's, in Britain, this is no benefit to workers themselves. They do not exercise any control over them, the bosses who lord it over them, are the same bosses who yesterday, and tomorrow, will be running large, non-state businesses, and the state can mobilise far more power than any private business against its workers when it comes to negotiating pay and conditions.
The fifth promise is again vapid, but is really a promise to find scapegoats, and to put more resources into the police and other bodies of armed men, required to put down the revolts of workers, as they resist attempts to make them pay for the actions of the state in bailing out the gambling losses of the ruling class. Starmer has shown himself to be a Bonapartist and totalitarian in the way he runs Blue Labour, and that tendency will be heightened if he gets his hands on government office and ability to use the state.
Finally, he promises to recruit 6,500 teachers, which is again simply an aspiration, without telling us how he will fund it, given the commitment not to raise taxes or borrowing, given the commitment to Brexit, and opposition to free movement and so on. Even so, even compared to the promises made by Blair, in 1997, it is thoroughly lacking in any kind of ambition or aspiration. In the end, it comes down to a belief by Blue Labour that the Tories are, now, so hated, that voters will vote against them, or at least stay home, enabling Blue Labour to win by default.
That belief is almost certainly correct, though, in certain seats, the hostility or just indifference to Starmer, may see Liberals or Greens sneak in, or take enough votes to deny Labour the seat, and Blue Labour will win a large majority in the election. But, that is very short-sighted, and dangerous. A Blue Labour government is likely to quickly disappoint those that voted for it, even with this flaccid agenda, and it will quickly turn on a working-class that is finding its feet once more. The economy is likely to grow, but it will have nothing to do with Blue Labour's policies, but is down simply to the resumption of the long-wave cycle, and the uptrend commenced in 1999, and constrained after 2010. Blue Labour will not face a working-class and labour movement like that of the 1980's, and 1990's, or even early 2000's.
Nor will that working-class, as it rises from its knees, be alone, as the same process unfolds across the EU and North America. But, the workers must be clear in their objectives, of what they are for, rather than just what they are against. Otherwise, as seen in the last decade or so, the beneficiaries will be the populist Right that offer simplistic solutions, but solutions that ultimately are no solutions at all. The most pressing need is to rebuild the organisations of the working-class, from the ground up, to build international workers' solidarity, to recognise that “The Main Enemy Is At Home”, and to replace the current leaderships with a new generation of internationalist, socialist, revolutionary leaders.
No comments:
Post a Comment