Issue 196 of SOCIALIST REVIEW Published April 1996 Copyright © Socialist Review

Two themes run through this mind numbingly awful book. One is that Thatcher got the basics right (although she went too far), whereas old Labour got the basics wrong. The other is that state sector workers and the poor must be dealt with harshly, whereas the rich must he mollycoddled. As for the authors' solutions to the ills of society they pretend to address, these are without exception vacuous, equivocal or downright nasty.

The tone is set on the very first page. New Labour's 'strategy is to move forward from where Margaret Thatcher left off'. In essence, this means emulating Tory idolatry of the 'free market' and making sure the power of the trade unions is curbed.

New Labour 'does not seek to limit markets' and 'believes that it is possible to combine the free market economy with social justice'. Social justice, of course, does not mean a just society. 'Differences in income and spending power are the inevitable consequences of markets.' Well, that's alright then!

New Labour 'welcomes the rigour of competitive markets' and warns, 'Profit is not a dirty word--profits are the motor of private enterprise.'

What do Peter Mandelson and Roger Liddle think is behind the devastation of so many lives in recent years if not the market and the insatiable drive for profits by the wealthy? Even they describe the consequences of the 'rigours of competition'--the enrichment of the rich and the impoverishment of the poor; mass and long term unemployment; the collapse of manufacturing; the low wages and despair of young people.

Their praise for Thatcherism continues. 'Privatisation has brought about improvements in operating efficiency.' Mandelson and Liddle apparently have not noticed the rage people feel about the privatisation of the utilities, which made a few men obscenely rich, caused tens of thousands of job losses and resulted in such magnificent 'improvements in operating efficiency' that Yorkshire, one of the wettest regions in Britain, could not be supplied with water.

Contracting out is welcomed because ,market testing is in principle sound'. They continue, 'If any group is doing its job badly, others should have an opportunity to do it better, or at lower costas long as unfair competitive advantage is not obtained by organisations who offer "poverty" wages. 'The crime is not slave wages, but breaking some unwritten rules about 'fair' competition. And how do cleaners do their work more cheaply other than by having their wages cut?

So Thatcher did a pretty good job. What about Labour? According to this book, the Labour Party 'has to recognise that ...relations between the unions and the last Labour government did become too close and incestuous'. Moreover, one of the main reasons Harold Wilson's government in the 1960s 'ended in disappointment and disillusion' was its 'retreat on In Place of Strife and industrial relations modernisation, which left trade unions powerful and unreformed'. Many of the ideas in Barbara Castle's In Place of Strife were eventually introduced by Thatcher, with the result that most workers have little chance of defending their jobs, pay or safety at work without breaking the law and risking their union's funds.

Mandelson and Liddle appear to believe that workers' struggles are always destructive or self defeating. Middle class disenchantment with state education was partly caused by 'the teachers' strikes in the 1980s', even though teachers were striking to defend education. The miners did not wage a brave battle against the vindictiveness of a Tory government and the ravages of the market system. No. 'The romanticism of the class struggle was dealt a fatal blow by the tragic tactical incompetence and subsequent humiliation of Arthur Scargill in the 1984-85 miners' strike.'

Much of the book deals with the deterioration of social services and social cohesion. Tory cuts in the welfare state are rarely blamed and there is no hint that any funding will be restored. In fact, there is a proud reassurance that 'under New Labour economic policies there will be no public expenditure bonanza which permits greatly increased resources for public services.'

So where do they look for the solutions? The answer seems to lie in punishing workers or the poor. In education, 'unsatisfactory teachers' must be 'removed'; the parents of truants should be prosecuted; and bad schools (like Hackney Downs?) should be closed down. Council workers should be subjected to competency testing and dealt with accordingly. The police should be strengthened to catch more criminals and the courts given more powers to secure more convictions.

The extent of the rightward drift of New Labour can be seen in this book's unashamed attack on the welfare state. It recommends (while pretending to merely raise it as a possibility) student loans to cover further education, repayable on an income related basis.

It also proposes that the mortgage owning working class should pay for schools and the care of the old and sick by spreading 'wealth between the generations'; and that dole payments should be stopped for those who refuse to cooperate with workfare schemes.

Mandelson and Liddle clearly see the future Labour Party as divorced from the unions. Even without their proposed introduction of state funding for the main parties, this would mean a party dependent on big business and the whims of people like Rupert Murdoch. They want a party modelled on something between the US Democratic Party and the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) or the Australian Labor Party.

Several soundbites are borrowed from the Democratic Party, such as, 'New Labour stands for the ordinary families who work hard and play by the rules.' There is also a giveaway paragraph explaining the benefits of 'ethical socialism'. 'Some socialist parties, such as the SPD in Germany or the Australian Labor Party, resolved a generation ago that they were unequivocally believers in this brand of socialism. The SPD renounced Marxism at Bad Godesberg in 1959...' It's a strange coincidence that Clinton, too, referred to this rather obscure German conference while he was trying to get elected. Mandelson. and Liddle deride Marxism as quasi-scientific. You don't have to be a scientist to know what their vision of Labour would be like in office. The past 13 years in Australia under Labor have seen sweeping attacks on workers, ending with Labor being trounced at the polls.

Clinton has overseen dramatic cuts in wages and welfare spending, and has failed to realise a single one of his pre-election promises. Even in Spain, where memories of right wing dictatorship are still fresh, a heavy hearted electorate have decided they just can't take any more of the 'socialists'.

The only hope I can take from this book is that if reviewers like Roy Hattersley and Will Hutton are angered by it a lot of other Labour Party members and supporters will be too.
The Blair Revolution: Can Labour Deliver?
by Peter Mandelson and Roger Liddle (Faber and Faber, £7.99)