Issue Avoidance
I wrote this comment piece for Guardian Unlimited yesterday:
Issue Avoidance
Gordon Brown's failure to address concerns about Iraq, privatisation or the controversy over Trident shows how out of touch he is
To be fair, Gordon Brown was in a no win situation as he approached yesterday's speech. Carefully planned to herald in his transition to leadership of the Labour Party it was widely judged that he needed to give the speech of his lifetime.
The formula was fairly obvious. Pay respects to Tony Blair, show Gordon the person, set out a record of achievement, do the vision thing, hint at a few big ideas and finally round on the Tories.
The problem was that it sounded like a speech too long in preparation and so nervously drafted that it avoided any controversy. As a result key issues facing not just the Labour Party conference but more importantly the real world outside were just finessed over.
How could any leading politician avoid addressing directly the bloodbath that is Iraq? How could Gordon fail to take on the concerns of not just the public sector unions but communities across the country about the latest round of NHS cutbacks and privatisation in the health service?
And at a Labour Party conference especially, how could he fail to mention the hottest issue causing controversy amongst even his own supporters, the spending of £76 billion on renewing Trident?
Nobody could disagree with his rallying call that "working together the good society can and will be built" but there was nothing by way of concrete policies on how this "motherhood and apple pie vision" could be achieved. The only policies announced were largely rehashed from past speeches, including his last budget speech.
How many times have we seen politicians in office become cut off from the outside world and become unaware that the world has moved on? Gordon seems oblivious to the change in mood in the country.
There is an underlying rumbling for change. A new generation is emerging which wants its politicians to address the hard issues openly and directly. They are up for it. The question they are posing is: "Is the Labour Party?"
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_mcdonnell/2006/09/post_429.html
Issue Avoidance
Gordon Brown's failure to address concerns about Iraq, privatisation or the controversy over Trident shows how out of touch he is
To be fair, Gordon Brown was in a no win situation as he approached yesterday's speech. Carefully planned to herald in his transition to leadership of the Labour Party it was widely judged that he needed to give the speech of his lifetime.
The formula was fairly obvious. Pay respects to Tony Blair, show Gordon the person, set out a record of achievement, do the vision thing, hint at a few big ideas and finally round on the Tories.
The problem was that it sounded like a speech too long in preparation and so nervously drafted that it avoided any controversy. As a result key issues facing not just the Labour Party conference but more importantly the real world outside were just finessed over.
How could any leading politician avoid addressing directly the bloodbath that is Iraq? How could Gordon fail to take on the concerns of not just the public sector unions but communities across the country about the latest round of NHS cutbacks and privatisation in the health service?
And at a Labour Party conference especially, how could he fail to mention the hottest issue causing controversy amongst even his own supporters, the spending of £76 billion on renewing Trident?
Nobody could disagree with his rallying call that "working together the good society can and will be built" but there was nothing by way of concrete policies on how this "motherhood and apple pie vision" could be achieved. The only policies announced were largely rehashed from past speeches, including his last budget speech.
How many times have we seen politicians in office become cut off from the outside world and become unaware that the world has moved on? Gordon seems oblivious to the change in mood in the country.
There is an underlying rumbling for change. A new generation is emerging which wants its politicians to address the hard issues openly and directly. They are up for it. The question they are posing is: "Is the Labour Party?"
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_mcdonnell/2006/09/post_429.html
posted by John at 9:35 AM
2 Comments:
26th Sep 2006
As this morning's headlines show, the root of the internecine conflict lies at the top, the very top.
The new labour speeches of the 21st century seem always to tell us nothing, are so crafted that when looked at in retrospect, the author can say "I never promised that".
With all leadership discussion removed from the conference the leadership election itself may well be populated with such speeches, and the only honest broker being John McDonnell - WYSIWYG.
I wrote this blog this morning:
Unions have to support McDonnell
Some trade union leaders are apparently, if reluctantly, coming to the conclusion that most of us reached some time ago - that there is no substantial differences between the politics of Tony Blair and those of his likely successor, Gordon Brown. Union leaders were given short shrift by Brown in New Labour’s national executive committee on Wednesday when they pressed for a commitment to end the corporate take over of the NHS and other public services. Brown defended the sell-off of NHS Logistics to the German firm DHL and the creation of markets inside the health service. He pointedly rejected the pressure from strike action organised by Unison against the privatisation and told them the transfer would go ahead on October 1. The national executive narrowly supported Brown’s position.
All this renders fairly irrelevant what happened on the conference floor later, when the angered union leaders used their votes to carry a resolution asking New Labour to “rethink the headlong rush to a competitive system" in the NHS. The terms of resolution also show that the union bureaucrats have learned nothing after nine years of New Labour. Introducing the private sector into public services is a cornerstone of a government that puts the needs of the market economy first and goes back to New Labour’s early days. Asking them to “rethink” this policy is akin to demanding that the tide stops turning. Will this ever get through to the union leadership? There is some doubt.
It is all very well for Dave Prentis, the Unison general secretary, to talk of newly qualified healthcare staff struggling to find jobs in a system driven by "market madness" and to declare that “enough is enough”. But what is he, Tony Woodley of the transport union and others going to do about it all? They are clinging on to New Labour for dear life while their membership is moving in another direction. At a fringe meeting, the unions warned that voters would abandon New Labour unless it put some “clear red water” between itself and the revitalised Tories under David Cameron. As this is clearly not going to happen under Brown or any other New Labourite, the unions are staring the end of New Labour in the face while offering no alternative.
There is another choice, however. They could denounce Brown and throw their weight behind the campaign launched by John McDonnell, chair of the Campaign Group of Socialist MPs. McDonnell is fighting on a clear platform of opposition to New Labour’s market capitalist polices. If the unions supported his bid for the leadership it would create the conditions for an open debate about alternatives to New Labour, both in policy and practical terms. The longer the union leaders sit on their hands, the more likely it is that the Tories will return unchallenged.
Paul Feldman, communications editor
Post a Comment
<< Home