Fortnight Publications Ltd.

Spoiling for a (Real) FightAuthor(s): Martin CrawfordSource: Fortnight, No. 306 (May, 1992), p. 16Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25553425 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 18:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.238.114.64 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:02:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

rights. Yet, apart from greater autonomy for

Scotland, these were the two that mattered.

Labour's reforms became an issue in the

last week of the campaign. They were radical

enough to be frightening to institutional con

servatives, yet not radical enough to inspire

people to vote Labour or change people' s minds

about the party. Labour's fearful conservatism

left it prepared to interfere with the British constitution but not to rewrite it. It paid the

price for its timorous attempt to appease its

own anti-PR lobby, led by the former deputy leader, Roy Hattersley.

Mr Hattersley has now resigned?along with Neil Kinnock. One can only hope that

Labour will now embrace PR and accept the

need for a strategy of co-operation with the

Liberal Democrats in bringing it about. If La

bour still fails to do this, then it is finished as a

radical and reforming party. Pro-Labour intellectuals are still numb with

shock, wringing their hands about an historic

defeat and the end of socialism as we know it.

They did this in 1987 too?some even con

vinced themselves that Margaret Thatcher had

staged an economic miracle. It is curious that a

government that has plunged into two major recessions in a decade, with a record of inepti tude in economic management unique in the

advanced industrial world, should be returned

to office. What does this say about Labour?

The truth is that Labour's economic strat

egy was- completely wrong?despite John

Smith, the shadow chancellor and likely next

party leader, being very popular with the vot

ers. Firstly, its monetary policy was slavishly conservative. Mr Smith was committed to main

taining the European exchange rate mecha

nism parity of 2.95DM to the pound, although this rate is crippling for British industry, con

demns the economy to permanent recession

and is unsustainable. Secondly, Labour pro

posed substantial tax increases for middle

income earners (over ?21,000), and the Tories

concentrated on this throughout the campaign.

Key groups would have faced high tax

increases in the middle of a recession, to fi

nance limited and ineffectual changes in social

spending and a small increase in child benefit, a modest rise in pensions, small extra amounts

for the National Health Service and education.

As the Tories pointed out, with a chutzpah

unique to the pin-striped breed, the middle

classes were being asked to make sacrifices for

small changes in spending that couldn't possi

bly sort out the underfunding of the public sector that they had created in the last 13 years!

Yet the claim is quite true: Labour did not offer

Anything else is just designer agonising by people

who are upset not to be on the

winning side

a real alternative in economic and social policy. So key sections ofthe electorate looked at their

wallets and decided to keep the change. Labour's mistake was not the proposal to

raise taxes, but what it proposed to spend the

revenue on. Had it concentrated on manufac

turing investment, industrial training and trans

port infrastructure?explaining the extent of

the Tories' neglect of manufacturing and the

need to reverse industrial decline?it might have had some hope. Factories before pen

sions, trained workers before the NHS, roads

before child benefit is a hard set of priorities for a traditionally welfare-state party to offer. But

Labour tried to have it all, whilst being fiscally

'responsible' and practising 'sound money'. It was at once too conservative and too

committed to a diverse range of underfunded

spending initiatives. If it had put industrial

renewal first, and concentrated all its efforts on

the Tories' economic failures, it might have

had some chance of denting traditional opin ion. As it was, it appeared to be a high-tax, soft

on-spending party that wasn't going to do any

thing dramatic?better the devil you know.

Labour will have to decide what kind of

party it wants to be. It will have to face the fact

that Britain cannot afford a major increase in

social spending, given middle-income earners'

attitudes, unless it is able to achieve a much

better rate of sustainable economic growth. It

will have to work out how to achieve such

growth, and move away from the current mix

ture of macro-economic caution and half

hearted advocacy of an industrial policy. It will

have to decide that a key component of eco

nomic modernisation is constitutional reform, to create a more equitable balance between the

parties and a more collaborative political cul

ture?one that allows long-run co-operation to

manage the economy. If it does these two

things it may have a future as a party of govern ment. If it does not, it can remain a party of the

poor, of the public sector and of opposition. Intellectuals' angst about the future is easy

to understand. The Conservatives don't like

them. Britain is economically and culturally

stagnant, and will remain so while mainstream

Toryism rules. But ignore the idle chatter of the

'death of socialism'. Labour on 35 per cent of

the vote is one of the few remaining strong

parties ofthe left in Europe. The reason Labour

is out of government is that it has been too

stupid to see the need to change the electoral

system while in government (in 1974-79) and

too conservative to make this a major plank of

its policy platform while in opposition. John Major's victory is far from good news,

but it means that the opposition in Britain has to

get up, dust itself off and get back to fighting the Tories. Anything else is just designer ago

nising by people who are upset not to be on the

winning side and who, because the Tories were

forced to fight in a recession, thought things were going to be easy this time around.

i SPOILING FOR A

(REAL) FIGHT

o_

A TOTAL of 4.738 people (0.6 per cent) spoilt their votes in Northern Ireland constituencies. Fermanagh/

South Tyrone had the highest rate. East Belfast the lowest Many more, of course, did not vote?325,233, or

28 per cent of the electorate. An

unknown number didn't bother to

register, Martin Crawford writes.

One of these was Kevin, whose

family have strong unionist roots?

his aunt has a statue of a 'B' Special

holding South African ami British Union flags adorning her TV set He couldn't see the point

"As far as I can see all politi cians here don't really care about

any kind of political progress. To he completely cynical about it they seem more interested in preserving

thelrposhlons in this place at the expense of doing any good tor the paople who voted for them That's

why I did not vote or even bother to register?^iere seems to be no

point" he said.

Liam, a pdrtical analyst had

registered feeling it important that at least Ms vote was claimed hut in the end he didn't use it

Belfast Nit none of the candidates were up to scratch. The area has a

history of Unionist domination, it is a

geographic thing and reflects back to the old gerrymandering. To my

mind many of the parties were totally

exploitative of the Ormeau Road

massacre, which was really

deplorable. The sitting MP, [Rev Martin] Smyth, i can't even

remember him saying anything about

it They are all the same in the end.".

Various voting people, all

describing themselves as anarchists, echoed this disenchantment

"Whoever you vote for, government wins" was the most popular reply.

Many had not registered because of having so fixed address, though smm also confessed to ^athy. A

few said there was no party to which they would feel comfortable giving their vote?none being sufficiently

prepared to embrace green or

radical issues.

Alasdak Roddick, of Belfast Youth and Community 6ro__p, had _______________ n_-# ____ ___iWt _u_tm -iii fepsiafeo, wr no otm i vote eraer

-Po?fticiaftsbereexistinavw?M, in a totally narrow tufa of thought. I SImWW ? # WfwWWp w^^w 9' ?v^b> IPS

difference if we hed a greater

degree of serf-government on e local

level, but I see the problems that

would be associated with that here." Michael McWilliams' whole

family didn't vote?even though,

again, they were registered: "We all

thought that there was no point as

no matter who you vote for here it

will make little difference to the way we are governed, in Northern Ireland we are basically ruled by the Tories from Westminster, so a vote for any candidate here is not going to make

any difference. I would have spoilt my vote hut I couldn't afford the bus fare to the constituency where I was

registered." Disenchairunent levels may not

be so high as te cause the govern meat am/ great concern?it hardly seems likely that there will ever he an erection where no one will vote.

Nevermeless, many people teel that the electoral system, or indeed the eanoldates, have Irtttete offer them. R nHMMRI Up HNP WWW WrtMHf if

anything, the diioiit hauled and, for whatever reason itiianfranrhiierirtn ww^umfawpw^en emvaMempue>e aawne^peayif veenaprsve^paFVP w

te resVeee the balance Is their

16 MAY FORTNIGHT

This content downloaded from 91.238.114.64 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:02:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions