‘A new dawn has broken, has it not?’ Tony beamed that
morning, even brighter than he had all the time before that the camera clicked. His smile, so parodied along with those
overly sincere hand movements, symbolised mid-nineties politics. Against all the odds, against the ravages of
the previous eighteen years, the systematic assault on our cities and society,
there was hope in that smile. For
millions of people, myself included, from May 1997 we believed things could
only get better.
We were right.
And we were wrong.
New Labour bought a new hope for politics to Britain. In a time of economic boom, there was the
opportunity to rebuild, to care not only about our immediate families’
prosperity but for the rest of the country’s wealth as well.
And yet despite the unprecedented funding being washed into
education, the NHS, the establishment of the minimum wage, reductions in child
poverty and a significant improvement in the standards of living for most people,
you can’t help but wonder: With a
majority that big, was it enough? If the
terror attacks of September 2001 hadn’t happened, if Blair hadn’t become
distracted – and ultimately all his and Brown’s good work overshadowed by –
costly and of dubious morality wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, should they have
done more?
Maybe it’s because 1997 was my election, or rather the one in which I (almost) could vote in. Four days too young, I watched the majority of my friends head off to the polling station and palatable change, for the first time in our lives, was in the air. No wonder I’ve become increasingly
disappointed, to the extent that, for years, I carried around an
outline for a short story in my head about someone who assassinated Blair for
letting him down. I eventually discarded
it as too teenage, too emotionally narrow.
Military misadventure took over from social reorganisation
and then the financial catastrophe of 2008 swept into town distorting our view
of what had gone before. Sure, a ruling
party which wins successive elections, while its once imperious majority ebbs
away, will inevitably be seen to be hanging on too long, but we forget how
dreadful our social infrastructure was in 1997.
We forget how drastically the country improved, but still, there’s that
question: was it enough? Though neither
of them, or any of the other New Labour architects, would ever admit to it, I imagine
them privately kicking themselves that the system reforms introduced didn’t go
further. If we’d been marched even
further into a fair society, would we have so meekly allowed the Conservative
government of the past five years to dismantle it?
Of course, too many changes too soon and we could have seen
a different story in 2001. I remember,
being approached in the pub where I was working, in suburban Birmingham, by an
elderly chap telling me I that I knew which way I had to vote, didn’t I? To save the soul of the country? Make no mistake, he wasn’t supporting the then
incumbents of Downing Street.
With the era of Blair and Brown, though, there seemed to
emerge a new phenomena: the professional politician. Examples of this species, such as Jack
Straw – more of whom later - who was elected to his safe seat in Blackburn aged just thirty-three have always been around,
but since the nineties parliament has been overrun by ex-spads, political heirs
and party machine-smiths with a media profile.
And of course, those who never needed a job in the first place.
When Cameron took the top job five years commentators said
that he looked the part, that he appeared to be prime minister material. Old Etonians, they’re all born to rule and
they know it. The House of Commons is
awash with white upper-middle-class men with Oxbridge degrees and private
schools, flush with confidence and an easy manner on the grand stage, but far
removed from the daily worries of normal people. Ian Duncan-Smith can see the spare bedroom
tax as just way of reducing the benefits bill, because being married to a
multi-millionaire he has no concept of tight finances. Ed Miliband, for all his positive attributes,
talks the right talk about a fair and equal society, but growing up in Primrose
Hill, the child of professional academics, he doesn’t have any idea what it is
to be a manual labourer living in Mold,
any more than I do. Hopefully he at
least recognises that.
In a week where we see long-term politicians, both former
foreign secretaries no less, Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind get caught
pimping themselves out for access to the halls of power one doubts any of them
ever recognise their own failings.
No, that’s unfair. The
self-interested snouts in the trough world view of Nigel Farage does us no favours. It is better recognise that most MPs are
hard-working and there for the right reasons.
There have always been foolish men whose time in power has gone to their
head, their belief in entitlement shakes their common sense.
Rifkind even had the audacity to claim he was self-employed,
dismissing his £67-£80-odd thousand, depending on the source, salary as not
sufficient. Maybe. He is, after all, MP for Kensington and he’d
near more than that to afford a shoebox around there. Of course this does ignore the fact of all those other non-executive directorships he holds, which are unlikely to be unpaid.
But neither Rifkind nor Straw are, despite their long
service in the House, the sort of bland professional I’m talking about. Both, at least, are identifiable characters
and have some ideological beliefs (aside from their own wallets).
They are not delivered flat packed, assembled at party headquarters and inserted
into some smart shoes and a grey suit before being deployed to the provinces. Somehow, this is another way in which Farage
has managed to pull the wool over people’s eyes. The privately educated, former hedge fund
manager is somehow presenting himself as a man of the people, as something different
to the establishment he is so embedded in.
It seems that people are fooled that, because he likes a fag and a pint
of bitter, he’s of working class stock.
If politics is, partly, the magic of making people think
they agree with you, then this is the ultimate example of the art. It’s nothing but people on the inside, trying
to pretend they’re on the out.
It’s a confidence trick, that’s all.
It’s not real change.
In the second half of the twentieth century, you had miners
inventing the NHS and working class kids from Brixton running first the economy
and then the whole country. In the 1970sthere were 150 teachers in the House of Commons. Now, it’s like we’ve travelled back to the
regency – as though the prime minister could as easily be from the house of
Lords as not. As though elections barely
matter. It’s just changing the badge on
the same people.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with professional
politicians. You would expect those with
whom you entrust the maintenance of, say, your car or your boiler to have the
requisite experience. Maintaining the
country is a little more complex, but it seems to generate people who are
professional election winners, which isn’t quite the same thing. In a representative democracy we want people
to act on our behalf, not just to offer the blandest least dangerous opinions, scampering
towards the middle ground. It’s starting
to look crowded in the centre and it’s hard to discern a difference at
times.
Put it another way, I can’t seen Aneurin Bevan having to
answer charges as to whether the adjustment made to his Father’s will around
the inheritance of the central London property constituted illegal or legal tax
avoidance.
But it’s okay, because Labour are deploying John Prescott to
“bash heads together”.
Whether that is the heads of Labour party workers, ministers and
prospective ministers or the voters themselves remains to be seen. Prescott is old school Labour, one of the highest
ranking politicians of the late nineties, early twenty-first century and as far
from what we mean by professional politician as its possible to get and yet we
mock his rough edges, we ridicule his speech patterns and that he doesn’t
conform into the anonymous dark suit brigade.
The poor beggars can’t win, can they?
Part of the problem is that MPs aren’t alone in being greedy.
The whole HSBC scandal encapsulates one
of the growing problems in this country, which the Conservatives seem perfectly
happy with: Greed, wealth and the
acumination of more booty at the expense of others. It creates the haves and the have nots. It gives us the likes of Rifkind and Straw
seeking their enhanced pensions, either through a desire to be one of those who
have or through envy of them. It’s perfectly
natural, but the more Ed Miliband talks about creating a country which is fair,
the more it feels as though his challenge will be to reconfigure people’s natural instincts
for self-advancement and preservation. I
think he’s right; I just worry not enough other people do.
Even my wife and I argue about this, despite both being
comfortably on the left hand side of the political spectrum. I see the payment of tax as a social obligation
and would be happy to pay more.
This is not to say that my wife
is pro-tax avoidance, but that she has more sensible – and significantly less
pious – views of things like whether having an ISA constitutes secretly wishing
to privatise the NHS.
(To be honest, I just couldn’t be bothered to do the
paperwork and this was a clutching at straws defence, but ssh, don’t tell her.)
I’m easily impressed by people’s stance on
taxation. JK Rowling – for all her
literary faults – at least has the decency to stay in the UK and pay her
taxes. As she says, the state was there
for her when she was at rock bottom, when she had absolutely nothing. It’s only fair that she gives something back.
Blair’s 1997 new dawn did herald in a political day of socialism-lite. An awful lot of good in their thirteen years
in office, but that term was twice that of the post World War Two Labour
government which created much of the social infrastructure which dragged our country
into the modern world, there will always be the question of whether they could
have, should have, done more. We’re still
having the same introspective arguments we have had for generations, squabbling over
high or low taxation rather than finding a system that works, rather than accepting
that to get a better future for all we have to be good citizens now. We should have sorted all this out. Instead we find ourselves missing the really important
things, like the Ukraine is being torn apart by the sorts of expansionist
aggressive military zeal not seen in Europe for more than half a century. Russian bombers over the coast of Cornwall,
for Christ’s sake. Who knows what happens next, but our council tax rate
isn’t going to make any difference.
And, of course, the problem with Blair’s dawn analogy is
that night must also fall. Darkness
shrouded us five years ago, under the cover of which the Tories has
systematically pulled apart systems which it took fifty years to develop, trying
to finish the job started in the eighties.
The only question we need to ask ourselves is whether this is a summer’s
night or a winter’s one?