[A-List] UK state: political realignment

["Keaney Michael" <Michael.Keaney@xxxxxx>]

The Conservative Party continues to disintegrate, as a former defence
and foreign secretary (who brought miners' strike breaker David Hart
into the defence ministry as an adviser, to be retained by Michael
Portillo when he was there) attacks the current leader for not being
critical enough of Blair. The trouble is, as Malcolm probably knows only
too well (from his experience in handling the Balkans under Major), that
the Rumsfeld Republicans have such a grip over Iain Duncan Smith that
the latter cannot do anything but slavishly follow a pro-US line. Sooner
or later it will dawn on the Bush administration that, politically
speaking, the Conservative Party is dead in the water. Step forward
"Lord" David Owen, always handy in a crisis, who can help set up a new
US-backed party designed to occupy the "centre" between New Labour and
punk Thatcherism, led, perhaps, by a newly invigorated Michael Portillo.
This party will accept the EU as a given, but campaign against UK
eurozone membership, along the lines of Owen's "New Europe" outfit.

As the article below implicitly suggests, there is a growing body of
opinion focusing on the "need" for an "effective" opposition. No doubt
Tony himself backs this, because a "legitimate" opposition means you can
deflect potentially destabilising, if unfocused, opposition such as the
sporadic but menacing poujadism of recent British protest, into a
vehicle that does not threaten the status quo. Labour under Kinnock,
Smith and Blair have done this for what remains of the labour movement,
by and large, but with New Labour now the "state party" there is a need
for some kind of "state opposition" in order to legitimise the system
and protect the position of hegemonic power bloc. Just as Kinnock
increasingly performed this role during the 1980s/early 90s, Charles
Kennedy's Liberal Democrats wish to inherit the mantle by disposing of
the punk Thatcherite Conservatives.

The trouble is, however, that there is no Cold War any more and US
strategic priorities are different, namely, the bringing into line of an
uppity Europe. While Duncan Smith is loyal enough, his party is washed
up as a political force (well symbolised by punk Thatcherite Andrew
Hunter's decision to join up with Ian Paisley's grotesque band of
pre-jurassic bigots), therefore a more subtle approach to derailing EU
integration is required. Subtlety is not exactly the Bush
administration's forte, but no doubt "Lord" Owen is making his case via
the usual channels (Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations,
the Court of St. James, etc.).


Rifkind attacks 'uncritical' Duncan Smith
By Paul Waugh and Ben Russell
The Independent, 04 October 2002

A former Tory foreign secretary launched a vitriolic attack on Iain
Duncan Smith's stance on Iraq yesterday, plunging the party into fresh
turmoil just before its annual conference.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind made his criticism in this week's edition of The
Spectator magazine, edited by the Tory MP Boris Johnson. The magazine
also claimed that Mr Duncan Smith failed to impress grandees at a
fund-raising dinner last week and that Michael Portillo has regained his
appetite for politics.

With David Davis, the sacked party chairman, seen by his allies as a
potential replacement for Mr Duncan Smith, the magazine also claimed
that a handful of backbenchers have in the last few weeks consulted the
rules on a leadership contest. Signatures from 15 per cent of the
parliamentary party - 25 MPs - are needed to trigger a ballot in the
Commons before the race would be opened to all 300,000 members in the
country.

In his article, Sir Malcolm attacked the Conservative leader's
"uncritical and unqualified" support for Tony Blair on Iraq.

Several senior backbenchers have voiced doubts over Mr Duncan Smith's
support for the Prime Minister, but Sir Malcolm went further, claiming
the Tories were failing to offer any "intelligent criticism" of the
Government's plans.

Sir Malcolm said Mr Duncan Smith should have used last week's recall of
Parliament to ask why the Prime Minister was so apparently committed to
an invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein's regime and so
willing to follow the line taken by President Bush.

For the Opposition to be seen to be "giving uncritical and unqualified
endorsement ... is unlikely to enhance its credibility as an alternative
and preferable government", he wrote. "Intelligent criticism by the
Opposition does not indicate a descent into crude partisanship and party
politics but a fulfilment of its constitutional duty."

-----

A week that has shown how much we need some real opposition to Mr Blair
Leading article
The Independent, 04 October 2002

Once again, Tony Blair, the consummate communicator, has seized the
moment. Having pretended to put the dark arts of presentation behind
him, he stage-managed a triumphant Labour conference.

Thus the Prime Minister's emissaries sombrely agreed with journalists
beforehand that this year their man faced the most difficult conference
of his time as leader. Nevertheless, they said, he would tough it out by
telling his party that, far from trimming on the use of private firms to
deliver public services, he wanted to quicken the pace.

When it came to it, though, the defeat for Mr Blair over the private
finance initiative (PFI) was a gift. The trade unions discredited
themselves and ensured a further shrinking of influence in the affairs
of the party that was once their wholly owned subsidiary by outvoting
the party members. Meanwhile, the split over Iraq was averted by an
old-fashioned fudge.

That awkwardness was conveniently got out of the way at the start of the
week, allowing a crescendo of euphoria to build up through Mr Blair's
speech to Bill Clinton's stardust-sprinkled performance on Wednesday.

Both Mr Blair and President Clinton judged their tone well. The Prime
Minister delivered his confrontational message in the most measured and
thoughtful language, with hardly a hint of last year's messianic
utopianism. But the delegates were too wary, too conscious of their
differences with their leader, to let themselves go. For Mr Clinton,
however, there were fewer inhibitions. The former President was unwise
to deliver the attack on the Conservatives written for him by Alastair
Campbell, but his appeal to Labour tribalism sent the delegates home
happy.

When the euphoria has worn off, however, the significance of this year's
Labour conference will lie at a tangent to the great show in Blackpool,
ever more like a US party convention.

What the event made clearer than ever was Mr Blair's dominance of
British politics. In scope, his dominance is comparable to Mrs
Thatcher's at her height, but it is structured differently. Hers was
helped by divided opponents on the ground to her left; his depends on
control of the centre ground, marginalising Tories to the right and
Liberal Democrats to the left.

Indeed, apart from the frisson of a 14-year-old affair involving his
predecessor-but-one, Iain Duncan Smith's turn in Bournemouth next week
threatens to be almost as irrelevant as Charles Kennedy's was last week.

What this one-party state means is that the real opposition to Mr Blair
has to come from within. But it does not come from the much-trailed and
heavily discounted usual suspects. It turns out that Mr Blair's most
formidable opponent is his Chancellor, Gordon Brown. The issue at stake
is not the PFI, but another seemingly esoteric aspect of private-sector
discipline in public services, namely the independence of "foundation"
hospitals.

This is of the utmost importance. The only hope for taxpayer-funded
health care is if genuinely independent providers are allowed to compete
for NHS business. Mr Brown fears the Treasury would have to pick up the
tab if hospitals go bust in this mixed economy of health care. But he
should not try to retain control - that will only perpetuate the
failures of state monopoly.

When Mr Blair repeated his refrain "At our best when at our boldest", we
did not realise immediately that it was also addressed to Mr Brown. Will
Blackpool 2002 mark the breakthrough in the public-service revolution,
or the moment when reform was thwarted?