Tony Blair exited Britain's political stage a few months ago. Which side he left from, however, is open to question. Having won three consecutive majorities, he's the country's most successful left-wing Prime Minister ever.
Or is he?
I adhere to the old-fashioned notion that what politicians do in office is more important than the number of elections they won. By this standard, it's hard to conclude that Blair was a lefty at all. Because Britain went backwards during his era, in terms of the things that matter most to our side of the political spectrum. Britain today is a leaner, meaner, more unequal society than when Blair came to power - and considering he inherited Margaret Thatcher's legacy, that's saying something.
Of course, no one expected Blair to undo the dramatic changes wrought by Thatcher. He took office in 1997 after deliberately watering down Labour Party policies and distancing himself from the past. But few thought he would actually take Britain in the wrong direction.
Here are seven ways Britain actually shifted to the right during Blair's tenure. The list doesn't even include Blair's disastrous endorsement of George Bush's military adventures - only the damage he did on the home front:
Inequality: Income inequality and poverty didn't budge under Blair, staying at the high levels reached under Thatcher. Wealth inequality actually got worse: in 1997 the richest 1% of Britons owned one-quarter of all wealth (excluding dwellings); today they own one-third.
Children: Nothing reveals the soul of a society more than how it treats its children. Last year the U.K. ranked dead last (worse even than the U.S.) on UNICEF's ranking of 21 industrialized countries for the quality of children's lives. Even when they go off to school, Blair hurt the kids. He broke a campaign promise and introduced "marketsensitive" tuition fees at universities - now many thousands of dollars.
Unions: Blair kept almost all of Thatcher's anti-union laws, and during his reign union membership declined further: from close to 30% of workers when he took office to barely 25% today.
Industry: Over 1.25 million manufacturing jobs disappeared under Blair, cementing Britain's status as an industrial hasbeen. He oversaw the near-demise of Britain's automotive industry, and watched Britain's merchandise trade deficit swell to 6.5% of GDP.
Monetary Policy: One of Blair's first acts was to grant so-called "operational independence" to the Bank of England (it may be independent from the government, but that hardly makes the Bank independent and certainly not neutral). In the decade since, the government made no effort to reform the Bank's rigid, unidimensional inflation-targeting system, nor challenge the underlying quasi-monetarist ideas which guide that system.
Privatization: Blair extended Thatcher's commitment to selling off public assets - but he did it in disguise. He pioneered public-private partnerships: a fiscal shellgame in which taxpayers bear the risks and investors reap the profits.
The Labour Party Itself: Needless to say, the activists who worked their behinds off to bring Blair to power quickly lost enthusiasm under his unprincipled rule. It was Blair's deliberate goal to break the ties binding his government's policies to actual Labour Party decisions. It is thus poetic justice that Labour Party membership fell by more than half during his rule, leaving his successors without a grassroots base.
In each case, it's not that Blair failed to undo Thatcher's right-wing shift, or failed to fulfill the hopes of the progressive voters who elected him. Rather, he actually led Britain in the wrong direction. Despite a few positive measures (like Britain's first minimum wage and modest increases in public spending), there's no doubt the U.K. remains - after a decade of Labour rule - one of the most market-oriented, business-dominated, unequal jurisdictions in the developed world.
There are lessons in Blair's legacy for those who still aspire to build a more inclusive, equal society. Most important is that merely electing someone who professes to share your views is no guarantee you'll even head in the right direction. Blair's first and foremost goal, in retrospect, was getting elected, not changing society - and, despite Britain's initial relief at ousting Thatcher's Conservatives, that was not enough to put the country back on track.
Worst of all, the unions and other groups that should have demanded more from Blair were silenced by their allegiance to Labour's electoral strategy. They mostly kept their mouths shut, even as Blair headed in an increasingly conservative direction. Only recently have they found their voices, opposing Blair's policies at home and abroad.
That's a crucial lesson for Canada's lefties to keep in mind, given our own fractured and confusing political landscape. The experience of Blairism proves we must keep our eyes on the prize (namely, better policies) - not on the party.
[Sidebar]
"One of the lessons of Blair's legacy, for those of us who still aspire to build a more just society, Is that merely electing someone who professes to share your views is no guarantee you'll even head in the right direction.'
[Author Affiliation]
(Jim Stanford is an economist with the Canadian Auto Workers and a CCPA research associate.)
No comments:
Post a Comment