LONDON: Victory by the Labour Party in the British election is an historic event, whose implications will spread far beyond Europe. It reminds us that in a democracy no ideology or party can ever take success for granted.
Under Margaret Thatcher, Britain's Conservatives secured a seemingly unbreakable grip on power, dominating political and economic debate. In fact, Conservatives have ruled Britain for 70 out of the last 100 years, almost the same proportion of this century that the Communists ruled Russia. Such was the confidence in the Conservatives' political monopoly that, after the last elections, many commentators doubted whether a Labour government would ever be returned to office. Five years later, the same question is being asked about the tattered, demoralised Conservatives, who seem on the verge of a party split which could condemn them to opposition for decades. Shattering political monopolies is what democracy is all about.
A second lesson from Britain is that politics is not always driven by economics. This election has proved that a booming economy is not enough to assure a government of re-election or even protect it from electoral catastrophe. As the Conservatives' unpopularity plumbed depths never before recorded in the public opinion polls, cynics in Britain said that people might talk from their hearts, but vote from their wallets. They might tell pollsters they were prepared to pay higher taxes for better public services and a more compassionate attitude to the poor. But in the end they would do exactly what they had done in each of the previous four elections - vote for a Party which proclaimed "every man for himself".
Today this pseudo-Marxist theory for economic determinism has been refuted once and for all. In 1992, John Major ran for re-election in the midst of an economic slump, a vicious monetary squeeze and the aftermath of a rapid inflation. Economic determinists predicted that he did not stand a chance. He won. Five years later, Britain has the strongest economy in Europe, with unemployment halved and inflation a non-issue. Voters showed their gratitude by crushing John Major. Rarely, has history provided a more precise controlled experiment to test a political proposition - and prove it false. We can now say with confidence that Marx was wrong: politics does not follow economics.
What account for this dramatic change? Half the explanation lies in the weakness and incompetence of John Major. In trying to explain the astonishing repudiation of Major's government, British commentators have quoted a comment made by Harold Macmillan in the 1960s, when he was asked what was the greatest problem a Prime Minister faced: "Events, dear boy, events". It was Major's complete inability to deal with the unexpected, his capacity to turn small political setbacks into major crises, which incited public contempt for his government. While many of his policies achieved satisfactory results, especially in economics, Major always looked like a victim of events, rather than their master.
The other half of the explanation is to be found in the Labour opposition and its leader Tony Blair. Blair completed the purge of the party's marxist left-wingers which began almost 10 years ago. He repudiated its traditional socialist ideology, rewriting the party's constitution to remove all references to state ownership. He abandoned even the social democratic commitment to redistribution of income through taxes and public spending. Blair has proposed a new version of left-wing politics, completely detached from the economic preoccupations of the Marxist tradition. For him, the difference between left and right is moral, not economic.
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
The great divide in politics is not about how the economy should be run, but instead over the social relationship between the government and the people. During the right-wing ascendancy of the past 20 years, the pendulum of politics swung too far towards individualism and ignored the capacity of collective action, regulated or organised by governments, to achieve what individuals could not do.
This may sound abstract, but British voters seemed to understand what Blair meant. According to the polls, voters were not moved by questions about personal prosperity and taxes. They were more interested in social issues such as improving hospitals and schools and preventing crime. Voters were also surprisingly indifferent to the issue of Europe, which obsessed the Conservatives and dominated domestic and international politics in the Major years.
In every western country - first in America, now in Britain and soon perhaps in France and Germany too - there seems to be a growing sense that the domestic problems which really matter to voters have been neglected by politicians who prefer to strut the international or European stage. (Even in Russia, the issue of Nato enlargement has failed to excite widespread public outcry, despite the focus on it by the new Kremlin elite.) Blair's election could mark a renationalisation of politics in Europe. Blair is the first leader of a major European country with no memories of WWII or the hardships of post-war reconstruction. Europe, for him, is a simply a practical and geographic reality -- neither a shining vision nor a mortal threat.
Here is an attractive, intelligent young leader of the Left with a belief in social solidarity and a strong social conscience -- but with none of the paranoia so evident in Europe about global competition and American domination and very little interest in the massive bureaucratic structures of trans-national integration which in Europe have become identified with left-wing ideals.
In opposition Blair showed there was life after Thatcherism for the Left. Now that he is in government, he will inspire new hope for the Left across Europe. He may even offer an alternative vision to the bureaucratic bankers' Europe promoted by Helmut Kohl and the Franco-German centre-right.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
The escalating war in the Middle East must be understood in a broader context. The fact that the Iranian regime felt emboldened to risk a direct strike on Israel attests to a changing world order in which Western power is increasingly open to challenge.
considers the implications of Iran’s unprecedented decision to launch a direct strike on Israeli territory.
LONDON: Victory by the Labour Party in the British election is an historic event, whose implications will spread far beyond Europe. It reminds us that in a democracy no ideology or party can ever take success for granted.
Under Margaret Thatcher, Britain's Conservatives secured a seemingly unbreakable grip on power, dominating political and economic debate. In fact, Conservatives have ruled Britain for 70 out of the last 100 years, almost the same proportion of this century that the Communists ruled Russia. Such was the confidence in the Conservatives' political monopoly that, after the last elections, many commentators doubted whether a Labour government would ever be returned to office. Five years later, the same question is being asked about the tattered, demoralised Conservatives, who seem on the verge of a party split which could condemn them to opposition for decades. Shattering political monopolies is what democracy is all about.
A second lesson from Britain is that politics is not always driven by economics. This election has proved that a booming economy is not enough to assure a government of re-election or even protect it from electoral catastrophe. As the Conservatives' unpopularity plumbed depths never before recorded in the public opinion polls, cynics in Britain said that people might talk from their hearts, but vote from their wallets. They might tell pollsters they were prepared to pay higher taxes for better public services and a more compassionate attitude to the poor. But in the end they would do exactly what they had done in each of the previous four elections - vote for a Party which proclaimed "every man for himself".
Today this pseudo-Marxist theory for economic determinism has been refuted once and for all. In 1992, John Major ran for re-election in the midst of an economic slump, a vicious monetary squeeze and the aftermath of a rapid inflation. Economic determinists predicted that he did not stand a chance. He won. Five years later, Britain has the strongest economy in Europe, with unemployment halved and inflation a non-issue. Voters showed their gratitude by crushing John Major. Rarely, has history provided a more precise controlled experiment to test a political proposition - and prove it false. We can now say with confidence that Marx was wrong: politics does not follow economics.
What account for this dramatic change? Half the explanation lies in the weakness and incompetence of John Major. In trying to explain the astonishing repudiation of Major's government, British commentators have quoted a comment made by Harold Macmillan in the 1960s, when he was asked what was the greatest problem a Prime Minister faced: "Events, dear boy, events". It was Major's complete inability to deal with the unexpected, his capacity to turn small political setbacks into major crises, which incited public contempt for his government. While many of his policies achieved satisfactory results, especially in economics, Major always looked like a victim of events, rather than their master.
The other half of the explanation is to be found in the Labour opposition and its leader Tony Blair. Blair completed the purge of the party's marxist left-wingers which began almost 10 years ago. He repudiated its traditional socialist ideology, rewriting the party's constitution to remove all references to state ownership. He abandoned even the social democratic commitment to redistribution of income through taxes and public spending. Blair has proposed a new version of left-wing politics, completely detached from the economic preoccupations of the Marxist tradition. For him, the difference between left and right is moral, not economic.
Subscribe to PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
The great divide in politics is not about how the economy should be run, but instead over the social relationship between the government and the people. During the right-wing ascendancy of the past 20 years, the pendulum of politics swung too far towards individualism and ignored the capacity of collective action, regulated or organised by governments, to achieve what individuals could not do.
This may sound abstract, but British voters seemed to understand what Blair meant. According to the polls, voters were not moved by questions about personal prosperity and taxes. They were more interested in social issues such as improving hospitals and schools and preventing crime. Voters were also surprisingly indifferent to the issue of Europe, which obsessed the Conservatives and dominated domestic and international politics in the Major years.
In every western country - first in America, now in Britain and soon perhaps in France and Germany too - there seems to be a growing sense that the domestic problems which really matter to voters have been neglected by politicians who prefer to strut the international or European stage. (Even in Russia, the issue of Nato enlargement has failed to excite widespread public outcry, despite the focus on it by the new Kremlin elite.) Blair's election could mark a renationalisation of politics in Europe. Blair is the first leader of a major European country with no memories of WWII or the hardships of post-war reconstruction. Europe, for him, is a simply a practical and geographic reality -- neither a shining vision nor a mortal threat.
Here is an attractive, intelligent young leader of the Left with a belief in social solidarity and a strong social conscience -- but with none of the paranoia so evident in Europe about global competition and American domination and very little interest in the massive bureaucratic structures of trans-national integration which in Europe have become identified with left-wing ideals.
In opposition Blair showed there was life after Thatcherism for the Left. Now that he is in government, he will inspire new hope for the Left across Europe. He may even offer an alternative vision to the bureaucratic bankers' Europe promoted by Helmut Kohl and the Franco-German centre-right.