[A-List] UK state: safety first

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

Gary Santos writes:

Global warming, peak oil, significant economic imbalances the world over, an
agenda of "freedom" by the current US administration, Iraq. . . Who can ask
for more? If this were a novel, the climax seems to be just around the
corner.

------

Alternatively, it could be an Alistair MacLean potboiler and this is simply
the latest twist in a serious of convolutions that could conceivably just go
on and on. At least until the planet gives out...

It would take someone of Mark Jones' extraordinary capacities to
contextualise what is to follow in terms of a snapshot of the global
conjuncture, something he used to do so well. Now we have to join our own
dots. Nevertheless, Gary's neat summary is as good a starting point as any,
and gives some idea as to why Britain looks dead set on a third Blair
landslide election victory this year.

The absence of an apparently plausible alternative to Blair (Gordon Brown
included) is underlined by some recent events which can be viewed as
deliberate sabotage of any latecomers (Michael Howard) presuming to offer
greater competence at the controls of state. The defection of former
minister Robert Jackson (an interestingly timed piece of political theatre)
is indicative of, among other things, where the centre of gravity is
situated in British politics, as the state cadre effectively endorses New
Labour's continuance of its high-wire act that began in earnest when Bush
assumed the presidency four years ago. In itself, Jackson's defection would
mean little -- a story of passing interest, of less importance than earlier
defections given the size of Labour's parliamentary majority. However, its
timing, so close to an election, coupled with the continued and failing
efforts of the Conservative opposition to make itself "fit to govern", make
this a more substantial blow than otherwise. It might have been assumed that
Michael Howard's leadership would have restored something like an image of
competence sufficient to invigorate a discontented segment of the electorate
sufficient to make a proper contest of the next general election. But
Jackson waited until Howard had well and truly stamped his authority on the
party and its policies before making for the exit. Thus Howard is weakened.
Add to that this week's rather 'interesting' story in Rupert Murdoch's Times
concerning Howard's election strategy guru aiming to minimise defeat rather
than go for victory and you have an embattled Howard having to issue denials
when he ought to be on the attack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4200749.stm

That the Times, of all papers, should be printing this, in spite of all the
denials issued by Howard and his guru, suggests mischief of a kind that
would regularly beset Old Labour during the 1970s and 80s. It also tells us
something about Murdoch's pick for the next election. Very much in line with
Dubya's, as are all his important policy decisions (mustn't piss off the
Federal Communications Commission).

The one major announcement that Howard has made this week, concerning
immigration policy, looks like a trap laid for him and walked into with
alacrity. As soon as he announced that, if elected, the Conservatives would
apply a quota system, the floodgates opened:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,1397914,00.html

Of course Howard is playing to a very traditional Conservative audience,
albeit one that barely exists. Its post-Thatcher successor constituency has
been well-represented by David Blunkett, whose courting of just about every
conceivable prejudice and knee-jerk reaction has won the undying affection
of Murdoch's chief urinal, the Sun. Thus Labour can play both the
compassionate and the tough cards in one hand, thereby 'triangulating'
Howard and making him look even more stupid.

Another theme of recent times that plays well with Labour voters and Rupert
Murdoch is "bash the toffs". Aside from the sideshow of fox hunting bans (a
convenient parliamentary preoccupation at a time when Blair's position on
Iraq looked very shaky), a consistent theme of Labour's authoritarian
populism under Blair and Brown has been the application of Thatcherite
meritocracy with far greater gusto than anything Thatcher herself dreamt of.
For while she held her coalition together with a combination of spivvy
on-the-make entrepreneurialism and empire loyalism, Blair (with Brown) has
retained the former whilst replacing the latter with a more up-to-date
version that emphasises the democratic credentials of the British system
(albeit in name only) as a land of opportunity, where everyone apparently
gets a fair shake. Tradition is still important, and there is no chance of
the royal family coming under attack from anyone at cabinet level for as
long as the queen herself stays around. But the glee with which the Murdoch
press reported Prince Harry's choice of fancy dress costume is typical of
Murdoch's long-standing mission to destroy the British monarchy and a useful
reminder of the hooray-henry society where the Conservative Party remains
strong. Archetypal public schoolboy Boris Johnson's fall from grace,
together with Blunkett's preposterous outburst concerning his victimhood at
the hands of "the rich"...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1376953,00.html

...together with earlier attacks on Oxbridge admissions policies by Gordon
Brown reinforces the New Labour claim to be the enemy of privilege, and the
image of that privilege as hopelessly outdated and utterly indefensible.

Meanwhile, on the Conservatives' right flank, and very much a cause of
Howard's embrace of the immigration trap, is the UK Independence Party,
which has become something analogous to the defunct SDP, whose primary
(sole?) purpose was to siphon off votes from Old Labour and thereby ensure
Thatcherite hegemony at the polls. Something similar has been happening
under Blair, in that the UKIP has continued the suspect work of James
Goldsmith's Referendum Party and railed against the European Union,
immigration, and all those things that grassroots Conservatives hold so
dreaded, but which the Conservative leadership could never act upon if it
had any hope of re-election (see the current reaction to Howard's
immigration plans). For largely meaningless elections (e.g. European
parliament) the UKIP offers a good and essentially harmless way of letting
off steam. Voters can stick it to Tony without Tony actually getting hurt.
Instead it's Hague/Duncan Smith/Howard who gets hurt, and by the time a real
election comes around the Conservatives look puny by comparison to Labour's
commanding position. The "contentment vote" (John Prescott's arrogant
justification of record low turnouts) ensures the continuation of that
commanding position.

It was no less a figure than Norman Tebbit who voiced his suspicions way
back in 2001 that the UKIP was being built up by MI6 to serve the purpose of
weakening the Conservatives:

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2004w21/msg00024.htm

The high profile of Robert Kilroy-Silk boosted the UKIP in time for the last
Euro parliamentary election. But now, with a proper general election in the
offing, how convenient of Kilroy-Silk to demand the leadership of his new
party only to be denied it and so he flounces out, announcing the founding
of a new party, "Veritas", supposedly standing for truth in politics:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherparties/story/0,,1394697,00.html

...thereby further splitting the anti-Tony vote and rendering all three
anti-Tony parties hopelessly at sea. Kilroy-Silk need not be a stooge for
state forces -- as with all politicians ambition can be manipulated and his
track record suggests/screams an alarming lack of modesty and proportion.

Whatever the reason for this latest development, it cannot but help Tony
retain his crown. And this is exactly what the dominant fraction of British
state and capital want right now -- continuity in the midst of a very choppy
international environment. Tony's initiatives in this area are of obvious
concern to "British interests", which are effectively to rein in if at all
possible the Bush administration (esp. re Iran), engineer further British
integration into Europe without overly offending too many US interests,
advance some kind of climate change palliative (people upstairs are
worried), and protect UK interests in Africa (under attack from the US and
prey to predatory French forays). After the election the permanent
government can push Tony aside or upstairs and bring in someone fresher to
continue the work for as long as the legitimacy of the Labour Party as the
party of government (state party) can be maintained. But for the time being
the future is blight; the future is Tony.

Michael Keaney