New Labour in rude decline.
Perhaps the government had the Queen herself in mind when it limited this year's parliamentary legislation to just 12 bills, leaving Liz to expel just below 700 words in the yearly parade of inanity, tradition, and as the Queen inexorably ages, insanity of getting her to dress in full ridiculous regalia to read line after line of jargon written on goatskin vellum. On the one hand, you have to admire her refusal to start reading it in a funny voice, or break wind or belch after the bills she doesn't think much of, such is the onerous and ludicrous nature of the state opening of parliament; then again, perhaps if you'd lived in the lap of luxury for your entire life, only having to make the occasional trip to meet Johnny Foreigner in-between state banquets and shooting small/and or large animals unable to defend themselves, you'd put up with the occasional indignity as well.In any case, this latest Queen's speech, due to the paucity of any real eye-catching initiatives, perhaps lays bear what has driven New Labour since its establishment better than any pretentious newspaper article or even book attempting to explain their success. While the economy boomed, and especially up until the Iraq war, most managed to either shut out New Labour's worst social and illiberal excesses, or they were helpfully covered by education and health reform bills which came as thick and fast as the crime ones. This time round, with the government boasting that its main priority will be dealing with the busting economy, and with the focus on the public services perhaps rightfully jettisoned to actually allow the reforms that have been put in place to take root, although a NHS constitution is proposed, the vindictiveness and general unpleasant nature of the crime, welfare and citizenship bills stick out to a far greater extent.
The main criticism being thrown at the government, as it always is at those coming towards a general election, is that it has run out of ideas. This is not the case in this instance: New Labour has ideas, it's just that they're epitomised by their intellectual poverty. You would have thought for instance that the first recession since the early 90s would be a bad time to start out on the most "radical" and punitive welfare reform of New Labour's three terms. You don't cut the safety net when a far greater number are either jumping or being pushed, unless of course you intend to keep the rise in benefit payments down to make up for your lackadaisical and far too late gestures at making those who prospered during the boom pay their fair share. Instead we have James Purnell, who has never had a job outside of wonkery and a short stint at the BBC, insisting that New Labour is rude health and that a recession is the perfect time to "increase the help" to those who need it to find work. This "increasing of the help" is the line which the government has taken, intended to suggest that it won't be cutting benefits or abandoning anyone or making them do unpleasant things such as unpaid work if they're useless enough not to be able to find any.
Then again, you shouldn't really have expected much else from a government who employed an investment banker who boasted he knew nothing about welfare prior to writing a report on it (not entirely true: he begged for a state subsidy of £1.2 billion over the Channel Tunnel, which is roughly 10% of the annual incapacity benefit bill) and which isn't willing to admit that its proposals were based on the preposition that the number of jobs available would continue to increase. The other fatal flaw is that it's completely uncertain whether these plans will actually result in any overall savings, due to how the government intends for the private and voluntary sector to pick up the slack, paying them for every individual they manage to get into a job. Then, just to add the cherry on the cake, it comes up with such obviously barmy and offensive ideas as how single mothers should be preparing to return to work as soon as their child hits the ripe old age of 1; obviously caring for the baby comes second to attending interminable meetings at the local JobCentrePlus (sic). If you thought that was bad, then extending lie detector tests across the country after their apparent success in trials, all to weed out the fraudsters that cost the Treasury far far less than those who avoid their taxes really ought to convince you of how a Labour government is intent on betraying those it is meant to represent. Similarly, it doesn't matter that proper polygraph tests are often no better at detecting whether someone is lying than by chance, and that is after decades of research and developments, ones based on voice alone are considered reliable enough to be used to dock benefits from people often already anxiety-ridden or depressed. Some might suggest that if it's good enough for the dolescum, why can't politicians be permanently hooked up to the same machines in the public interest? Couldn't that potentially save us far more in the long run than any harassing of some of the most vulnerable in society?
Much of this isn't being pursued out of anything as noble as sorting out a system which certainly does have its problems and which can be abused, but rather because Brown is intent on continuing the doomed Blair agenda of at least gaining the right-wing tabloids' acquiescence by being as right-wing socially and on criminal justice as the party can manage without setting off mass internal protest. Crucially, this has recently coalesced with the feminists remaining in the party, resulting in the almost farcical reforms on prostitution, where someone who fails to determine adequately whether the person they're paying for sex is controlled for another person's gain can be charged and potentially convicted of rape. This coalition of opportunity was never more accurately described than by john b:
I’m especially impressed/depressed by the bit where they effectively admit that government policy on prostitution is based on the Venn intersection between Julie Bindel and Nick Griffin. That’s basically a summary of the current lot’s policy on everything, isn’t it? - if you can find something so bloody stupid that gibbering rightwingers *and* gibbering Trots think it’s a good idea, they’ll promote it.
It isn't just that though which makes you despair of the other crime policies outlined in the speech, but instead the government's apparent determination to stamp out almost anything that might resemble the citizenry daring to enjoy themselves. Hence lap-dancing clubs, something truly making people up and down the country rise up and demand change, will be reclassified as sex establishments, same as sex shops and sex cinemas (which don't exist, to the best of my knowledge), and so increasing the numbers that will oppose them opening up, just as the same individuals oppose any change in their area regardless of what it is. Likewise, local authorities will have the power to ban cheap drink promotions, anyone selling alcohol will need to sign a now compulsory code of conduct, while measures to further clamp down on anyone drinking in public or underage will be introduced. As usual, there is no inclination to look to why we have such an apparent drinking problem or binge culture, which might well pose some unwelcome questions about quality of life, working hours and wage slavery; instead just roll out the bans, the higher fines and the new powers. That in a recession some might well think the government ought to lighten the burden and even encourage you not to sink in a depression akin to the economic one seems to be anathema; instead it's time to attack all the bugbears of the rightwing press which only simmer during the boom but explode in indignation during a bust.
So it also is on the introduction of rules towards gaining citizenship. No longer will it simply be enough for you to show a rudimentary understanding of English, know enough about the country to outwit some of the contestants on the Weakest Link and pledge allegiance to our unelected monarch; unless you want to wait an extra two years, you'll have to perform voluntary work as well. Paying tax and not breaking the law it seems are no longer enough; they have to show they really want to enter our glorious multicultural society where all are welcome and no one is discriminated against by err, having to jump through as many hoops as the most jaded official can come up with. No one seems to have an idea what this voluntary work will be: it can't be picking up litter or cleaning off graffiti, as that's what those who can't find a job are going to do, equally taking that job off those newly having to declare that they are on "Community Payback", who have already also taken that off those paid by the council to do it.
This then is New Labour in apparent rude health. Instead it's a party exposed, something long overdue, as lacking in any rigour and exhausted by its own long-term policy manoeuvres, reduced to just a husk of its former self, its true nature fundamentally apparent. This could well be the last Queen's speech before a general election. It ought to be Labour's last. The sad thing is that the Conservatives will only offer even worse.
Labels: citizenship, crime policies, death of Labour, legislation, New Labour, policy, Queen's speech, welfare reform
| Permalink
Post a Comment