image The main headline from New Labour’s budget has been the decision to raise the income tax rate to 50% on anyone earning more than £150 000 a year, a move that will distress many of this site’s readers. This will add between £2,000-£4,000 to most of your tax bills. The Financial Times argues that a “clear division between the main political parties over how to share the pain of getting public finances into shape” and Lenin’s Tomb reports that Paul Mason, a well regarded economics journalist for the BBC, feels that “the idea that social democracy is dead has been disproven”.

My understanding that good social democracy is about delivering reforms that benefit working people. Things like free healthcare, universal access to education, pension provision and all those things that make Harold Wilson appear such a pleasant contrast to Tony Blair.

The Financial Times sets out some of the implications of Alistair Darling’s budget. The first of these is that “a fierce and sustained squeeze on public services is on the way after the general election”. In fact it will be a return to Thatcher era levels of public spending and the government is anticipating  expenditure to rise by only 0.7 per cent a year. Those covert subversives at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) say that public spending is likely to fall by 0.1% annually in real terms from 2011 to 2014. It’s easy to predict that Darling’s axe will fall in pretty much the same places as his Tory counterpart George Osborne would make cuts – transport, housing and other areas which require a lot of investment. There is an ecological price to pay for this too. Spending money on public transport infrastructure, building new homes to robust energy efficiency standards and bringing the rest of the housing stock up to scratch would both create jobs and have a positive impact on carbon emissions. Instead there are untested plans for carbon capture power stations fuelled by coal.

Another major aspect of this budget is its lack of reality. Darling expects people to believe that an economy currently shrinking at a rate of 3.5% by this time next year will be growing at 1.25%. In some alternate reality he might be right but everyone else is laughing at this prediction.The IFS is claiming that to plug the £90bn hole in the budget the state will have to tax every family in Britain extra £2840 per year by 2017-18 or save money by cutting services.

One can quibble about the IFS’ sums but the politics of the next few years are clear. There will be a choice of two parties both hell bent on raising direct and indirect taxes with a major part of the burden falling on working wage earners. The social wage, which has already been seriously eroded over the last three decades will also be badly cut.

And I nearly forgot to mention Darling’s £16bn of asset sales in the next spending round. That’s a polite phrase for privatisation.

If social democracy isn’t dead the relatives are gathered round the bedside, the doctor is looking sombre and the patient is having serious trouble breathing.

7 responses to “Alistair Darling – class warrior”

  1. I tend to agree with your post, though if I was to carry on the medical metaphor of social democracy, I would say that it is long dead on the operating table, with several deluded surgeons still injecting adrenaline and defibrillating.

    It was a fantasy budget, and the largely cosmetic 50% excepted, deeply reactionary, with the regressive taxes on drink, fags and fuel increased.

    The so-called green measures were laughable in their token nature, and the pathetic amount of money dedicated to them.

    Like

  2. The Ultra-Lefts due to not applying Trotsky’s concept of Law of Uneven and Combined development and Dialectical Materialist method have prematurely concluded that the Bourgeois faction has won out which leads to some of them falsely define Labour as a Bourgeois party. Most non-Ultra Left revolutionaries recognise that the Bourgeois New Labour faction has attempted to turn it into a Bourgeois party but have failed to destroy it as a mass working class party. There are those on the left who start from this correct standing point of seeing Labour not completely destroyed as a Social Democratic party but under-estimate the past impact of New Labour. Analysing this impact is the secondary part of working out the extent of New Labour’s past strength and what historical factors finished that project off.

    The Trotskyist concept concerning Law of Uneven and Combined development is an important method to apply in recognising that the Bourgeois New Labour elements and right wing Social Democrats did succeed in taking the party backwards towards extreme Monetarist policies. They however could not destroy Labour’s link with the Trade Unions and had to make very limited concessions to Social Democrats in order for the Trade Union Bureaucrats justify not overthrowing that New Labour leadership. Trotskyists should expose that it was these Bureaucrats’ unprincipled deals that kept New Labour in power. New Labour could not break links with the Unions before a general election in 1997 because it was necessary for Trade Union Bureaucrats to control the rank-and-file and have political representation in order to manoeuvre for their interests and privileges. Without political representation Capital can more easily disregard the Bureaucrats and workers pressure. That is why Trotskyists without a left alternative of another party with a mass base tactically oppose the Unions disaffiliating from Labour.

    The landslide victory for Labour in 1997 represented the beginning of a radicalisation of workers and sizeable middle class elements. This radicalisation was beginning by the late 1980s and early 1990s with the 1987 stock market crash; movement against the Poll Tax; ecological campaigns; and in defence of democratic rights. Due to Major replacing Thatcher as leader of the Tories with him giving a more liberal image was one factor in them just winning a general election in 1992. There were after that election, further economic problems such as the ERM fallout; certain industries being affected by crisis; and growing insecurity among the Middle Class and Aristocracy of Labour. Due to the massive extent of Labour’s landslide this slowed down Blair’s project of using a narrow parliamentary majority or a hung parliament to establish a Coalition government with the Liberal Democrats in order to more easily severe ties with the Labour movement. This electoral victory strengthened those Social Democrats who did not want Labour turned into a Bourgeois party.

    Britain’s ruling class was surprised by the extent of Labour’s 1997 landslide. They played it cleverly by using New Labour to pay the bare minimum to workers, and incorporating the Trade Union Bureaucrats and Social Democrats to act as a left cover so there was no serious working class revolt. Due to effectively carrying out this policy they saved billions of pounds. This like all historic events was not inevitable. The Times wrote an article a day after 1997’s election that if the radicalisation spined out of control concessions to workers would have to be on the scale of what Roosevelt carried out in the 1930s and the 1945-51 Attlee government. It was the ruling class fear of a greater radicalisation why the New Labour project of an Bourgeois party slowed down. Their strategy was to ride the radicalisation out and do everything possible to bring the private sector into public services without a social explosion deepening that radicalisation process. The ruling class hoped that the masses despair of Labour’s insufficient reform helping them would turn a limited radicalisation into its opposite where reactionary forces could make inroads.

    Towards the end of Labour’s post-1997 1st term the strain between the unions and the government began to appear in strikes with examples such as the 2001 College Lecturers strike for higher pay. Blair attempted to deepen the Privatisation of public services by having it bounced in Labour’s manifesto for a 2001 general election. After that election the Trade Union movement and some Social Democrats started a fight against those plans. There were strikes again in 2002 with examples of a one day strike by local government workers and strikes by fire fighters between 2002 and 2003 for a 15% pay increase and against cutbacks to that service.

    The massive anti-war movement against US-British Imperialist war in Iraq started a radicalisation against Blair. His defiance of this mass movement with the launching of that war meant that his career as Prime Minister would be smashed. Britain’s ruling class realising his weakness wanted to use him after Labour’s 3rd term to see how far he could get away without social explosions to undermine Comprehensive Education with City Academies increasing and massive redundancies in hospitals. This is the only reason they kept him as Prime Minister so long. He eventually had to go due to enormous damage done to British Imperialism as a result of his foreign policy adventures.

    Brown has tried to carry on where Blair left off. This is what has led to the electoral disaster for Labour. There is some truth in the Bourgeois media that the taxation on incomes of 150,000 + in this year’s budget represents the beginning of an end for the New Labour project. The New Labour project was to free Bourgeois elements from any working class pressure inside that party by removing all links with Trade Unions and Social Democrats. Historically what it reflected were a response to a massive Capitalist crisis which requires a big attack on workers; and the Liberal Bourgeoisie needing a political realignment with the Euro sceptics taking over the Tories. This New Labour faction was strengthened by a Liberal Bourgeois ideological offensive against Socialism due to the strikes workers lost in Britain during the 1980s, and the 1989-91 crisis of European Stalinism in which was spun by those ideologues that ‘Socialism was finished’. Today we have reached full circle ideologically with the last two years of Capitalist crisis which is leading to Marxism gaining a hearing again. The taxation announced on richer elements represents the first of move by Social Democracy to strengthen their position in Labour.

    The ruling class hysterical reaction to that partial concession to Social Democracy is that they require tens of billions of cuts due to the emerging depression and they do not want any workers pressure felt inside a government’s party. Andrew Neil said last night on his show that GDP could go down 5%+ which would mean a bigger drop for British Capitalism than even during the 1930s. British Capitalism no longer has the Empire and its dependence on finance capital has severely weakened it further. On top of this the banks could according to an IMF report lose 4 Trillion Dollars. Even if Obama invest billions more of capital it might not save them.

    This provides a context of massive class battles internationally and in Britain. The Tories maybe playing up their tens of billions of cuts in order to reduce their majority at the election. If this is their strategy they could be carrying out the interests of a ruling class which wants a coalition government. Cable could be playing the same game by talking about difficult cuts to public services; attacking public sector pensions; and cutting the number of University students. There are different options the ruling class may consider. They maybe want a coalition government of New Labour; Tories and Liberal Democrats to see how far they can attack the working and middle class. This could split the Labour Party with Social Democracy keeping control of Labour. The ruling class would hope Social Democracy could contain the radicalisation. It cannot be ruled out a possible pre-revolutionary crisis breaking out as anger expresses itself against 30 years of Thatcherism; Blairism; and any future coalition government.

    Like

  3. Anthony,

    the ruling class won’t worry too much about forming a “National Government” or any other variant of coalition because, as you rightly point out, Blairism/New Labourism have quenched whatever tiny illusions voters might have had in 1997. The Tories are virtually a dead cert in the General Election.

    Still, you seem to think that what you call the “bourgeois faction” has not quite won out in the Labour Party because the link with the trade unions has not been broken.

    Do I understand you to be saying then that the task of the moment is to mobilise what is left of the Labour Party against coaltionism? And on that basis you will be calling for a vote for Labour in the coming elections?

    Now I may be an ultra-leftist with an incorrect understanding of the dialectical method and uneven development but this horse is dead, deceased, expired and flogging it is completely useless, as useless as the attempt by some on the left to re-create “Old” Labour Mark 2.

    Like

  4. Padraic because of his understandable hatred of New Labour leads him to make a major tactical mistake at the next general election with him not calling for a Labour vote. Lenin and Trotsky always argued against Ultra-Lefts not to be subjective to treacherous working class leaderships but to fight against them with our own revolutionary methods. Trotsky when writing “In Defence of Marxism” argued for a Marxist scientific approach against Shactman’s emotional subjectivism. The Trotskyist approach to fight workers’ bureaucracies but at times have united fronts with them at times when they are in conflict with Capital.

    Subjectivism towards counter-revolutionary labour bureaucracies has led revolutionaries making major mistakes. There were those Ultra-Lefts due to Social Democratic treacherous acts during and after World War 1 dismissed their mass base. Then there were the Stalinphobes who did not defend the Workers’ states due to massive crimes of Stalinism. Trotsky argued against such Ultra-Leftists revolutionaries in a 1937 article against Burnham and Carter entitled “Not a Workers’ and not a Bourgeois State? “ that Marxists have to distinguish between the norm and the reality of workers’ parties; Trade Unions and Workers’ states.

    There are three concrete examples (two of them in areas of the world revolution) and in British politics where subjectivism is used against Trotskyist positions. The terrible crimes of Bourgeois Nationalists and Islamic Fundamentalists are used as a justification to renounce defence of semi-Colonies against Imperialism.

    Most of the Left utilise the extreme Bureaucratic pillage from 1991 to 1999 in Russia and Eastern Europe combined with the Capitalist inroads to renounce defence of these Workers’ states against complete Capitalist restoration. Those in the ISG who did not recognise the Nicaraguan Workers’ state because that economy was not predominantly nationalised broke from a Trotskyist understanding of transitional societies.

    Phil Hearse made a major mistake in 1990 or 1991 when he argued the ‘Capitalist’ state was defending those nationalised industries/sectors expropriated by the Sandinistas. The Bourgeois elements expropriated in Nicaragua during the early 1980s came about due to a revolution in 1979 which destroyed the core of a Capitalist state. It was not a Workers and Farmers government because the Sandinistas for a year or two ruled with Bourgeois political representatives in government. When the Sandinistas purged the Bourgeois elements in government and nationalising industries/sectors the Workers’ State emerged. There were paraells with Cuba. Trotskyists should read Hansen against Burt Deck on why Cuba was only a workers and farmers government when Bourgeois representatives were purged from government and only became a Workers’ State when the Capitalists started being expropriated. The Hearseites used the fact there was not full nationalisation in Nicaragua like there was in Cuba to deny that a Workers’ state had been established. Hearse’s formula on the ‘Capitalist’ state defending nationalised industries/sectors was an adaptation to extreme Ultra-Lefts such as Ian M. who argued in the early 1990s that the Nicaraguan civil war was an inter-Capitalist conflict.

    There is understandable anger by the masses on what Brown has done. We cannot repeat the masses mistakes that are indifferent to a hung parliament or a Tory government. The British Trotskyist Tony Roberts when he led the League for Socialist Action from 1974 to 1978 argued against groups such as the IS/SWP and IMG who adapted to moods rather than stick to a scientific analysis of Trotskyism on the way forward for workers.

    Trotsky in a mid-1930s in an article entitled “Sectarianism; Centrism; and the Fourth International” argued sectarians cannot see contradictions within processes and see everything in formalistic terms. Padraic main methodological error is failing to distinguish between the Blairites; Brown; and the Social Democrats. Due to Brown’s pro-Capitalist policies Padraic argues that mean Labour is finished dismissing any possibility of an internal Social Democratic opposition emerging.

    What Padraic does not realise is that because a Bourgeois party could not fully emerge there were intermediately stages with right wing Social Democrats to help that process of Bourgeoisifcation along. If this process was nearly completed these right wing Social Democrats would have been purged because the Bourgeois elements who have no further use of them. Brown made a deal with the Blairites last autumn in order to block a Social Democratic threat. The Blairites may be doing a deal with the Tories and Liberal Democrats in order to remove Brown as Prime Minister. This might be one reason why Brown conceded to Social Democracy in order to shore up his position. Last night on Newsnight it was revealed that Blair has publicly attacked Brown for the 50P tax for top earners.

    Trotskyists call for a vote to Labour at the next general election because unless the party splits we say a workers party despite its right wing leadership is better than Capitalist parties is because if you organise that party can be influenced. There has to be a governmental slogan of what a workers government should do. Until the majority of workers become revolutionary we call for Reformists to take power so workers can go through an experience which leads them breaking with Social Democracy. Labour may try to win this election by pointing out drastic Tory cuts. Revolutionaries need to relate to those workers who vote Labour to stop the Tory cuts.

    Padraic does not see how the economic depression is going to recompose politics of all the classes in Britain. The workers and sizeable middle class radicalisation could deepen the split between Social Democrats and New Labour. Strikes against pay freezes could strengthen the Labour Party’s left in the next year. As Mandel argued that Capitalists unlike Ultra-Lefts that when they attacks workers in severe Capitalist crisis they understand why they have to make drastic cuts. The Capitalists losing trillions may gamble that Labour due too many Social Democratic pressures will not cut tens of billions in public services turn to a coalition government in order to implement those cuts. It would be criminal Ultra-Leftism not to distinguish between a Social Democratic party despite its semi-Bourgeois leadership in government and coalition government or Tory government attacking workers more severely. Instead of fighting against New Labour and doing everything to stop a coalition or Tory government Padraic offers sectarian passivity to this Tory or coalition danger.

    Like

  5. external bulletin Avatar
    external bulletin

    Anthony because of his inability to put commas around clauses and his habit of referring to people he’s talking to in the 3rd person rather than directly ends up confusing this reader.

    Like

  6. Click to access bn76.pdf

    Looking at income distributions in the above report, I was amazed to find that this measly measure would raise over £3bn a year extra in tax revenues. If the tax rate for earners over £150,000 was 100%, the take would be £32bn. This assumes that the inland revenue would bother to force the rich to pay their taxes.

    Like

  7. Correction: the take would be an extra 18bn.

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending