Michael Wills is worried about votes…
Martin Wicks
North Swindon MP Michael Wills is worried. His speech to a fringe meeting at
the conference of new Labour pressure group Compass, was reported on the front
page of the Guardian in the lead article. Mr Wills is known to have a close
friend by the name of Gordon. Perhaps this explains the prominence of his
comments. At any rate he is warning of the prospect of electoral defeat at the
next General Election. Whilst he recognises "profound disillusion and
disengagement" amongst Labour supports he fails to face up to the roots of
this.
North Swindon MP Michael Wills’ is worried, and you can understand why.
Speaking at a fringe meeting at a conference organised by the new Labour
pressure group, Compass, he claimed that at the General Election “every single
Labour MP on the doorstep reported profound disillusionment and
disengagement”. This does have the merit of trying to grapple with reality,
whilst the Prime Minister and his coterie merely seem to want deny that such a
thing exists. But when it comes to an appreciation of the roots of this
“profound disillusionment” of traditional Labour voters, Wills cannot himself
face the reality. The problem it seems is that the voters will not listen to
New Labour’s “message”. It is they who are at fault not New Labour!
“Unless we can get people to start listening to us, unless they are prepared
to hear the message we are putting across, we are going to lose next time.
There is no question of that.”
There are none so blind as cannot see. There are none so deaf as those who
refuse to listen! Wills is suggesting that the problem is one of presentation
rather than substance. The electors refuse to see the reality of New Labour’s
‘successes’. How very irrational of them. What Michael Wills and New Labour
cannot face up to is the fact that it is what the government is doing which
has alienated vast swathes of its traditional supporters; and not just the
Iraq war which he says lost him 3,500 votes. It is very common to hear the
refrain from people who have voted Labour for many years, ‘they are no
different to the Tories’. Whilst there are differences with the Tories Blair
reconstructed the Party on the same ground as Thatcherism. This involved the
abandonment of the welfare state, not its ‘modernisation’, and the progressive
marketisation of public services. They have even introduced a market into the
NHS in which hospitals have to ‘compete’ for patients. In Wiltshire this has
led to an unprecedented crisis, with the decimation of services (see
Health crisis - what crisis ).
Wills is right when he says that the electorate does not ‘trust us’. And he
recognises that the ‘Presidential style’ of the Prime Minister is a problem.
But he cannot face up to the fact that it is the substance of New Labour which
is the reason for the disillusionment of its traditional supporters and the
decline of its membership.
Wills is worried about losing his Parliamentary seat, of course. The crisis of
New Labour in Swindon does not bode well for his chances. The Council, which
was historically a Labour one for decades has seen a precipitous decline both
in the Party’s organisation and in the number of councillors. Even in the
Thatcher days the Tories did not gain control, even though they had the MP.
Yet after 3 years of the Blair government Labour lost its majority on the
Council, though remaining the largest party. In 2000 it had 28 councillors to
24 Tories. Today the Tories have 42 and Labour has only 12. Four Labour
Councillors have defected to the Tories, one resigned and left local politics,
and one broke with Labour over their support for increasing Councillors’
allowances at the same time as the Tories were cutting services.
The dilemma of New Labour in Swindon was in part summed up by an article in
the Swindon Advertiser by Michael Wills and South Swindon’s ultra-New
Labourite MP, Anne Snelgrove, on the future of the town. What criticism did
they make of the Tory Council? That they are privatising council departments?
That they are not opposing Bath University’s ultimatum on the location on
which it wants to build a campus?1 That they are accepting vast numbers of new
houses being imposed by an unelected body in the South West? That they are
trying to rush through a proposal for an Academy which will be run by a
private company? Alas, our two MPs accept all this, just as the Tories do.
Well might Private Eye ridicule Anne Snelgrove for her comment that ‘the
country’ is ‘proud’ of the work of the Deputy Prime Minister.2 This is the man
who has the Midas touch in reverse. He turns gold to dross. This is the man
who has given power over our town (and others) to an unelected body which, at
his department’s prompting tells us how many houses we ‘need’, regardless of
our view. This is the man who has made the planning process less democratic.
This is the man who has sought to eradicate Council Housing and still
maintains the effective ban on Councils building new houses. The reality is
that Prescott is the object of ridicule and contempt in equal measure,
astutely summed up by Steve Bell’s cartoon, the bulldog caricature.3
So what are the profound differences with the Tories which the MP’s revealed
in their article? Apparently the Tories are not “sufficiently ambitious” for
the town. Instead of, dare we say, a bog-standard library, “why not plan for
one that surpasses the best elsewhere”. Frankly, this is pathetic, providing
an easy target for the Tories, who can say with some legitimacy, why didn’t
Labour produce a new library in all the years they were in power? 4
We have also seen the spectacle of the MP’s complaining that the Tory Council
does not build enough social housing. This is the cheek of Old Nick after 9
years of a New Labour government. One Labour Councillor informs me that he
told Michael Wills, “it’s your government which is stopping Council house
building”. As for Anne Snelgrove, as we discovered at the Defend Council
Housing lobby of Parliament, she is opposed to Councils building their own
houses. (See
Home owning democracy )
Undoubtedly the decline in Labour’s support in Swindon reflects the national
picture of disaffection amongst traditional labour supporters. But when a
Labour candidate in Parks (a council estate where I live) manages barely a 100
majority over a Tory candidate you know the party is in trouble.
In the old days (certainly pre-Blair) political and ideological differences
between the two major parties were significant enough to make defection from
one to the other very rare. But that was before Blair’s political and
ideological coup. That four councillors have crossed over to the Tories
reflects the absence of real ideological differences.5 The recent defector
Mavis Childs said that she wanted to get things done for her constituents.
Their interests “come before party politics”, she says. Clearly, according to
this logic, the only place to have a direct influence is in the ruling Tory
group which has an absolute majority.
What New Labour in Swindon has yet to explain is why the Tories have gained
such a big majority; why it has declined so precipitously. Amidst all the hype
in the early Blair days we were told that the party was going to increase its
membership to 1 million. In fact, so disgusted has much of the membership been
with Blair that instead of an influx he has succeeded in more than halving the
party membership. Perhaps our MPs can explain why, if the government has been
such a ‘success’, party membership is less than half the 1997 level. We wait
with baited breath. Perhaps the members failed to face up to reality just like
the electorate.
Why should traditional Labour voters, never mind anybody else, vote for New
Labour? This is the question posed as a result of 9 years of a ‘business
friendly’, privatising government. What is the difference between what a
Labour Council would do in office and what the Tory Council is doing now?
Unless the electorate sees some positive reason to vote Labour again, then the
Tories will maintain their stranglehold on the Council, at the expense of
working class people. The Tories appear to be ‘getting things done’. If the
policy of New Labour hardly differs from that of the Tories, then why not vote
for the more effective or ‘efficient’ party? Such at least was the conclusion
of Mavis Childs.
Labour can hang on and wait for the electorate to get fed up with the Tories,
but overturning such a big majority could take a long time. If they want to
campaign against them in a way which resonates with local people, and is
believable, they have to have a different programme and policy. But here they
face the twin obstacle of their government and their MPs, both of whom are New
Labour zealots.
Labour could have allies to build opposition to the Tory Council. For
instance, they could work with the local government unions to oppose the
Tories privatising Council departments. Unfortunately, there is no sign as yet
of them opposing the Tory policy.
Labour could campaign with the unions and tenants for the right of Councils to
build Council housing once again. Two Labour councillors joined the delegation
which lobbied Parliament in relation to the ‘fourth option’. The housing
crisis facing the town is a major issue. House prices in Swindon are too high
for many local people. All we see being built in the town centre at the moment
are luxury flats. The Council house waiting list will not be cut without a
Council house building programme. A campaign to change government policy, to
allow Councils the right to build new Council housing would be a significant
difference with the Tory Council.
Labour could campaign for the Housing benefit and Council Tax service to be
brought back in-house. OK, it was they who privatised it, handing it over to
WS Atkins with disastrous consequences.6 However, they could recognise it as a
mistake and campaign for the service to be brought back in-house. Thus far the
Party has missed the opportunity of criticising the Tory administration over
its latest move in relation to Liberata (the company which took over from WS
Atkins). These worshippers of ‘the market’ (the Tory Council in this case)
have punished Liberata for failing to carry out their contract with the
Council, by handing over to them an extra £850,000! You might imagine that if
the company fails to carry out their contractual obligations to a satisfactory
standard then they would take the financial hit rather than the Council Tax
payers of Swindon, especially at a time when the Council was cutting services.
Isn’t this supposed to be the ‘free market’? But even here New Labour has
failed to attack the Tories for feather-bedding a private company with our
money. What better opportunity than this to demand the service be brought back
in-house?
Labour could campaign with the trades unions and local people against the
Academy which is proposed to replace Headlands school. That would mean
opposing government policy, of course. Yet Michael Wills was over the moon at
the involvement of Honda in the proposed project. Labour movement people on
the other hand are appalled at the involvement of an anti-union car firm in
Education.
The Labour group could attack the Tory Council for its fraudulent
‘consultation’ on the issue. Lead member Garry Perkins has said that this is
the only way that the people of the area will get a new school, so there is no
debate about whether or not local people want it. Presumably we can discuss
what colour the doors are. But because of New Labour’s support for the
privatisation of education they have failed to defend the democratic rights of
local people to genuinely debate whether or not they want to go down the route
of an Academy.
Nobody in the wider labour movement in Swindon underestimates the problem that
a big Tory majority on the Council represents to working people in general and
the trades unions in particular. Even those of us who believe that a socialist
political alternative to New Labour is necessary, would be in favour of a
united front with Labour to build opposition to the Tory administration, if
such a thing were possible. Yet if it was possible for Labour Councillors to
work with people who they consider as political opponents (even the dreaded
Socialist Unity) to jointly campaign against the BNP, why not to campaign for
new Council housing, or in opposition to privatisation?
Michael Wills, without spelling it out, seemed to be saying in his speech that
Blair should go. But what difference would Brown make when (as explained to me
by another Labour Councillor) he is wedded to the very same policies as Blair?
Certainly some traditional Labour voters might be persuaded to hold their nose
and vote for the party again if the much hated Blair departed, but it is the
‘free market’, means testing, privatising agenda of New Labour, as well as its
support for a right wing Republican administration in the USA which lies at
the root of the “profound disillusionment and disengagement” which Wills
admitted to.
Notes
[1] Bath University had said that it wants to build on a site adjacent to
Coate Water Country Park, or else it will not build a campus in the town.
27,000 signatures have been collected against this unpopular proposal. See
https://savecoate.blogspot.com
[2] She has made quite a profession out of asking what might be described as ‘please give a job’ questions, being duly rewarded with some junior post or other.
[3] Prescott is pictured as a dog called ‘market’, pulled along by the lead by Blair. It sums up the role of lap dog which Prescott has performed, doing his master’s bidding, presenting a ‘left’ face for Blair’s neo-liberalism.
[4] For the benefit of people outside of Swindon, the central library has inhabited for many years prefabricated huts in the town centre.
[5] One of them is actually a Tory who crossed over to New Labour and has now gone back to the Tories.
[6] A massive backlog of work led to elderly people (on benefit and hence having their council tax paid for them) being threatened with eviction, since it had not been paid, through no fault of their own
June 2006
> > home page > >