In Praise of Mr. Seddon ...

I recently got hold of a copy of a new memoir by Mark Seddon, former Editor of Tribune, past elected member of New Labour's National Executive Committee, UN correspondent for Al-Jazeera and now back in London as Director of the People's Pledge.

The fact that he says some really, really nice things about me on pages 153-154 and 186 (we have worked together on this or that project since the mid-1990s) should not cause doubt about my thoroughly straight assessment that this book is very good indeed.

But this is not a book review. I can simply say that anyone who really wants to know what life was like for an honest man in a dishonest political party will find this book entertaining and informative. The cartoons by Martin Rowson, an old Seddon mucker, add some tasty icing to the cake.

This is not the only public reference to my work in the Labour Movement in the mid-1990s. I wrote background pieces for Lobster some years ago, just to have it on the record, and NEC slate candidate Liz Davies also gave a good mention some years ago that was not entirely accurate but well-meaning.

Even Mark (for lack of space) over-eggs my guru status in the formation and running of the internal Grassroots Alliance in 1995/1996. Andy Howell, Trevor Fisher and Ann Black (still on the NEC and working hard) are owed equal billing for constructing the core centre-right element of it, Labour Reform.

Similarly, the project, though firmly under my pragmatic strategic direction, would have been impossible without the immense subtlety and organisational talents of my Left counterpart Redmond O'Neill who was to play a central role in Ken Livingstone's return to the centre stage in London.

What interests me more are the two small vignettes surrounding my entry in Mark's story, both of which tell us a great deal about why New Labour failed - and fail it did, in terms of both core economic competence and ability to provide a sustainable commonweal for the most vulnerable.

The first has a prominent political journalist 'cautioning' Mark against becoming involved in our pitch to get independent grassroots members elected to the NEC because he had 'heard' that the Blairites would 'probably succeed in stopping us'. I have to assume that Mark is reporting him correctly.

The second has Gordon Brown calling Mark in to say that he was pleased that he was running (thus the tensions with the Blairites were clearly very early in their making) but that he should be careful in allying with 'Trots' (the internal party term for the very tiny band of 'revolutionary socialists' in the Party).

What do these two stories tell us about the British political establishment in 1995/6? It tells us two things. The first was that journalists were already ceasing to report in a detached way and were engaged in the construction of a group-think about what was appropriate behaviour.

Yes, this was just the friendly tip of one journalist to another but it was also a piece of advice that did the political classes' leaderships' job for it. It tried to persuade a moderate and sensible person not to join a sincere group of grassroots radicals because it might be bad (we presume) for his career.

This was clearly not intended by the journalist. He was just trying to be helpful. But a journalist who ceases to be detached and gives advice on a political matter is slipping over a line - and the British Establishment has long since slipped over a line that separates it from the mass of the population.

The caution was probably right - from a careerist perspective - but Mark decided to do what was right. The democratic vote was overwhelmingly for his position despite a hugely aggressive operation by the Party machine.

I am not particularly attacking one single journalist. He gave honest advice which was well meant but, whether politics or economics, the general habits of British journalism were already those, in the mid-1990s, of pragmatic group-think based on private briefings, 'things heard'.

Journalists are not wholly neutral in politics. Opinions become aligned with primary sources in State, Party and even Business, those who wield power - neutral between elements in the elite but not between elites and their subjects.

What was relatively trivial in our case (if rather non-democratic) became serious when no journalist until Peston was prepared to question the economic assumptions of that same elite. That failure to question meant that they were surprised and then we were surprised by a system breakdown.

Now we come to Mr. Brown. His opinion was no doubt a tactical one - the Grassroots Alliance would have crumbled quickly without two sensible proven mainstream Party players like Ann Black and Mark Seddon so it was sensible to try to frighten Mark into distancing himself.

If you know Mark, then such tactics are likely to flow over him like water off a duck's back. He will give that disarming smile of his, crack a self-deprecating joke and suggest lunch at the Gay Hussar. What is disturbing about Brown's advice is that he had more of a point than Mark credits.

The moderates, who actually ran the Campaign on a moderate and simple democratic platform, did have Trotskyists in their ranks in a junior capacity as engines for mobilising the vote (Trots may be a little mad but they work damn hard).

What Brown never asked because he is a surprisingly unsophisticated thinker is why Labour right-wing traditionalists, centre-left radicals and democrats were working with these people in the first place? Probably because they had nowhere else to go.

In a series of clumsy 'Stalinist' moves designed to crush dissent, Labour loyalists who believed in simple values such as consultation and democracy were pushed ever outwards by a combination of union self interest, a centralising party machine and competing kitchen cabinets in Parliament.

We return to group-think - a relatively small coterie of professional politicians and special interests were so determined on acquiring power that they did not consider that a small group of Party members might be speaking for the Party and that some compromise might have been a cheap and useful investment.

Far from revolutionary, the Alliance was conservative. It wanted a genuine partnership between members and elected representatives for the common weal. Its trajectory to the Left reminded one of nothing so much as that of the Russian liberals into the narodniki under the Tsar - mere desperation.

Be all that as it may, the Alliance won an outstanding victory that was meaningless. Elected members were a Potemkin village. Power was exercised entirely by a decidely dodgy Party civil service and then by an autocratic gang who drove the nation to petty warfare and, ultimately, economic ruination.

Do not misunderstand - our challenge to the elite was totally absurd, pure existentialism. It ruined political careers and changed nothing. And, yet, I cannot regret it for a moment ... because it was the right thing to do, something that was not mere pragmatism within a closed culture.

Today, I am largely de-politicised. I find myself unable to criticise the Conservative element within the Coalition with the force that I might once have done because I think of the alternative - an authoritarian, economically incompetent, war-mongering, centralised operation with a disdain for civil liberties.

England (which I see now as more meaningful than the UK) struggles to manage appalling levels of debt in a crumbling world economy and continues to blow a small fortune on foreign adventurism while 25% of the over-55s subsist on £24 per day and students pile up debt just to get an education.

Whatever will 'save' England, it won't be the corrupt 'official' Left within the existing system - not without precisely the democratic revolution inside it that we advocated fifteen years ago.

It will either be a steady pair of hands from its old Tory enemy or some revolutionary transformation of a Parliamentary and Party system that is way past its sell-by date and may not survive a second failure by another Great Party of State.

But do I get excited by all this? No, I do not. Good men and women once saw this coming and did what they thought was right. I learned a hard truth in the process. There are wise and good people across the political spectrum, rich and poor - but there are no wise or good political parties.

The 'Meaning' of General Election 2010

Last night's election result, with perhaps only another forty or so results to come in as we write, has its grim aspects - the potential for weak government, administrative incompetence, the collapse of momentum for change and the serious threat of a loss of market confidence in the country.

The Momentum For Change Collapses

Our last analysis stands with one exception - the last seven days of the election did not prove as tense and exciting as we had expected. The momentum for change ended ....

If anything, the election became dulled, as if the two both challengers, Clegg and Cameron, feared that they would lose their assumed leads by becoming more exposed to questioning. They allowed New Labour the leeway to rally its coalition.

Cameron was probably wise to do this but Clegg's lack of flair and drive in these last days allowed too many people to wobble back home to their respective tribes.

It would have been a high risk strategy but a determination to follow Vince Cable in telling the truth about the economy and setting clearer terms for a coalition might have made a difference but we will never know.

The technical analysis of the results is available in many places on the internet and we generally recommend the BBC. It is solid, experienced and non-partisan but it is also a little restricted in what it can say about the 'meaning' of events. As usual, we will try and abstract that meaning ourselves.

The Conservative Achievement - The English Party

The Conservatives' achievement was actually quite remarkable, given their position only three or four years ago, but they have still not established themselves a truly national British party.

All three of the petty 'nations' have remained in the hands of others. The question often arises why the Tories cling to a Churchillian British Imperial perspective instead of seizing the post-imperial moment for an English Parliament where 'conservative' values would become embedded in the bulk of the nation.

In fact, the Tories know that appearing to be 'British' increases their acceptability to the English and it maintains their hold in the non urban and suburban South. Yet it is an internal contradiction that leaves it caught between two stools, not truly national in either a British or an English sense.

This tension has been brilliantly exploited by New Labour (or rather its Mandelsonian-Blairite version) in building up an 'inclusive' political model that is less ambiguous about its appeal to anti-nationalist British votes in the Celtic areas and in winning over ethnic block votes in the 'English' cities.

New Labour - Ersatz National Interest

The way the swings operated also showed that the 'one nation' concept that had applied at almost any election until the Conservatives alienated Scotland and the bulk of Wales under Thatcher, as well as much of the urban north, is well and truly defunct.

In Scotland itself, there was actually a swing to New Labour with local support for the Prime Minister increasing significantly in his own constituency. If anything, the attacks on him by the national media look as if they strengthened his position and mobilised resentful tribalists into coming home.

Similarly, Battersea may have fallen to the Tories but the neighbouring constituency where a popular Asian could call on the local ethnic vote saw the Labour vote increase.

Yet in the North East, traditional 'English' territory but a Labour heartland, there were swings to the Tories very early in the evening that would have translated into a full Tory Government if they had been truly nationwide.

The pundits were undoubtedly confused throughout the first half of the evening as the swingometers, on which broadcast analysis has depended in every previous election, showed that the exit polling was correct in substance but was no guide to which seats would be won or lost in practice.

The Return Of The Tribal - From 'Class' to 'Identity'

This is the second 'meaning' to hold on to - New Labour's political strategy of using the State and its funds to embed its coalition has worked. Its vote stayed solid as its tribe turned out to vote (indicating that local machines may not be in quite as distressed a state as many have thought).

Key interest groups were able to put their local, ethnic, regional and class interests behind the Party created with great skill by Mandelson, Blair and Brown in the 1990s. New Labour is not only not dead. It has been strengthened.

What is dead is any serious Old Labour or libertarian Left challenge to the dominant order within the Party that was created at the 1996 Party Conference. Dissent is now idle (if it ever was not since 'Partnership in Power') - you are either in or out of the machine.

Given the history of credit crunch, this is the worst that it is likely to get for New Labour until and unless the United Kingdom breaks up or the IMF smashes its coalition by demanding cuts that it has to administer itself in Government. The first is unlikely, the second worryingly more so.

Liberal Democrats - Last Chance Saloon

The third 'meaning' arises from the illusions of those who thought the Liberal Democrats offered an opportunity for change. I doubt whether those high poll results for Clegg were false reads but it was, in fact, a 'bubble' and the Liberal Democrats must take responsibility for not seizing the moment.

By any objective standard, the Liberal Democrats had the most mature approach to the coming crisis (though we advisedly say merely 'the most') but their results were all over the place - wins here and losses there that amounted to no real net gain. Given the expectations, this is a disaster for them.

Elsewhere, TPPR got into a debate about the influence of the old and new media that now seems futile because it appears that none of the media had the influence that they believed they had or might have.

The Clegg bubble was overwhelmed not by media criticism or made stronger by new media support in the middle classes but by the inability of Clegg to exploit his one shining moment in the broadcast sun - he was clearly as surprised by it as anyone - and by the usual mix of fear and anxiety in the street.

The processual message of 'change' needed far more inspiration from the 'change merchants' (who really are only another faction of the political class when you get down to it). Without that necessary sense of drama, Tweedledum-Tweedledee tribalism had an opportunity to recover.

On the one side, Labour somewhat brilliantly exploited the fears of a Tory Government to the 'turkeys who feared Christmas' and brought its coalition back together.

Labour heartlands have never really cared much about refining democracy, plebiscites will do. What we noticed in the social media was a new surge of energy amongst New Labour progressives in those final vital days while Clegg seemed to sit around like a pudding waiting for the diners to arrive.

On the other side, the Tory strategy of advising the wobbling middle that a vote for the Liberal Democrats would allow Brown to stay in office shifted his wobblers back to him and it kept floaters floating with turnout not as high as expected.

If you are not inside the New Labour coalitional machine, you really are outside it and much of the Southern English middle class remains terrified at the thought of New Labour remaining in power. Cameron's team got that argument spot on!

Our Twitter feed was filled with local people unable to make a decision until the last minute with a sort of wobbling between the Tory Establishment and the Liberal Democrat protest vote that seems to have been resolved in different ways in different areas but generally against radical change.

Again, the role of Twitter and Facebook as viral medium needs more research because, if it contributed to the creation of the Clegg bubble, it also contributed to its pricking as caution, fear and anxiety were conveyed back through the system.

A Very Conservative Election

Taking these three 'meanings' and weaving them into a whole, we have seen something very 'conservative' re-appear in British politics. The British people are not fools. The events in Greece were the biggest story in the media that was not domestic or related to the Icelandic ash.

Every voter knows that we are living on borrowed time in an uncertain world where we do not set the agenda. Two emotions are dominant at such times: fear and a determination to survive. Optimism and imagination, required for reform, are in short supply.

At the theoretical national level, everyone might witter on about the need for strong government but they always mean 'our' strong government. They want a strong government that advantages their interest in the competition with others for a decreasing economic cake.

This is the overall 'meaning' of this election - the two great coalitional tribes have recoalesced at the expense of 'change' and are in a struggle now to control the State's mechanism for taking cash in taxes and redistributing it (or not) for political reasons.

From a market perspective, this is grim because we now have days or weeks in which minority parties with no national mandate may be dictating policies that are either distractions from tough decisions (such as referenda on reform that few now really care about) or expensive.

Meanwhile, not only economic recovery and the confidence of the markets is at stake but social cohesion. The Tories certainly cannot go much further in seducing the liberal centre-left and are under pressure on their radical nationalist and English Right. Losses to the Right cost them some seats.

New Labour has implicitly promised to protect its own but it can only do so if it disproportionately hurts the middle classes and takes the markets to the limits of their tolerance.

Administrative Incompetence - Africa Comes To Europe

Meanwhile, there is one other factor to take account of - the gross administrative incompetence of local government in many areas in their handling of the election.

We have not researched whether the Government in Tehran is crowing over this and other serious allegations of irregularities in ethnic-dominated constituencies but they have every right to do so.

What it really tells us is something we have known and observed for a very long time - that the British administrative system, constructed in the nineteenth century and built up over the decades since, is no longer fit for purpose.

The electoral errors of organisation and judgement are not exceptional but are standard fare yet the chances of reform are minimal under a Lib-Lab coalition because the transfer of resources from the private to the public sector in order to maintain full employment is central to the New Labour coalition.

High regulation levels (largely to meet trades union requirements), morale-damaging risk-averse target-setting (rather than the exercise of judgement) and a refusal to hire and fire on merit or make workers and managers truly accountable on actual results have created the 'turkeys' that cannot be killed.

This would not be a problem in a prospering economy. The 'turkeys' would live because the 'geese' (the private sector) was perpetually laying golden eggs - but the eggs are drying up and some of the geese now fear that they will be slaughtered for turkey feed.

This is really what is at stake in the creation of the next Government - not processual reform.

The question is whether one faction can deal with a massively over-engineered public sector without splitting the Kingdom or having to deal with Athens'-style riots or whether the other faction can hold things together long enough for an otherwise globally important economy to recover and lay eggs again.

If you want to know the real 'meaning' of the election, don't worry over much about the factional struggles in our political elites, look at the markets, look at Greece, Spain, Portugal and Eire and keep a close eye on sterling.

STOP PRESS: Nick Clegg has just announced that he thinks that the Conservatives, as the largest party, should form the next Government. This is not a surprise, partly because the Liberal Democrat Party grassroots has hardened its position on New Labour over the last decade.

The price is likely to be a Referendum on electoral reform which should be easy for the Conservative Party to concede so long as it is free to campaign against change.

The likelihood now is of a Tory minority Government taking unpopular decisions but restrained by the Liberals and minority parties and with New Labour both sniping from the side and seeking to detach the Liberal Democrats from the Tories at the first serious sign of a vote of no confidence.

The logic is of a second election within the next eighteen months when either it suits the Tories to go to the country on 'administrative competence' or the Liberals think they have got all that they can from the Tories and can cut some electoral pact with New Labour.

One Liberal Democrat strategy (though 'once bitten, twice shy') is to revisit the approach discussed between Blair and Ashdown but now with Cameron in which key policy changes are matched, later if not earlier, with Government positions for the Liberal Democrats in a key Ministry or two.

We may expect Gordon Brown to stand down or be challenged and there will be no progress on that side until a new Leader is appointed - probably a relatively young Blairite who can 'understand' the needs of the machine.

In terms of policy, the Party will probably try to appear 'responsible' to the middle classes whilst channelling public sector and regional fears of spending cuts to maintain the coalition in shape. It is quite possible for New Labour to be returned with a working majority within eighteen months.

All in all, we have a period of considerable political excitement ahead amongst an anxious public and jittery markets with no clear resolution for some months to come.

Your decision. Your country. Your future.

As they warm up for the Leaders' Debate, perhaps we ought to try and rise above the hysteria of these last days of the General Election and analyse what is at stake.

Conservative New Labour

New Labour has sold itself, paradoxically, as the conservative option, the safe pair of hands that will see the country through the difficult period ahead.

The political reality is that it is selling itself to its historic coalition on a much more cynical platform - "when the reckoning comes, we will protect our own against the vengeful wolves of the opposition".

Labour's polling is pretty appalling but it would wrong to count them out yet as a political party. There will be blood-letting if and when they lose but if these are no longer national elections in which two parties slug it out across a united nation they may become so again.

The United Kingdom has, over the last decade, broken down into a number of overlapping networks competing for the spoils of government - small nations, regions, providers of various services to the people and their camp followers.

New Labour should be able to hold the line against its rivals unless its own coalition suddenly decides that the Liberal Democrats represent a stronger line of defence than a victorious Conservative Party. This belief may or may not emerge over the next week and that scares New Labour to its very core.

Conservative Defensiveness

The Conservatives, meanwhile, have had a mountain to climb precisely because they lost, under Thatcher, any credibility that they once had in key parts of the nation - most notably Scotland (displaced by the SNP) and in many urban centres (displaced by the Liberal Democrats).

For several years, the informed political Press has coldly and clinically assumed that the weight of the FPTP system would pile up votes for the Tories in the Southern half of Britain without ever giving them the landslide that brought Tony Blair to power in 1997.

Worse, the Tories' drive to the centre has alienated some of their own Right which has drifted (on European, taxation and immigration issues) to UKIP, the BNP and other small English nationalist groups.

The 'theory' was that the Conservatives could afford to alienate the 'nasty' elements in their own ranks because some of them (BNP) were also pulling votes out of New Labour. The price was worth paying to win over wobbly social democrats and keep the Liberal Democrats in their box.

The Conservative game had to be to get a sufficient if small majority to use the resources of the State to 'fix' the system (much as New Labour had done in its favour) and then call another election to consolidate a new long term coalition, presumably of former Blairites. So far so simple.

The Surge

The Liberal Democrat surge (which as we write was showing signs of abating and may either abate completely or gain a new lease of life tonight) has thrown a spanner into the tweedledum-tweedledee assumptions of British politics.

It is not just that the public is faced with the prospect of a 'hung' Parliament with disproportionate power for small parties - and aren't Plaid Cymru playing this up, no doubt fuelling English rage as they do so?

Nor that State servants and the usual suspects in the Atlantic system who pull many of the strings on both sides of the establishment divide are suddenly faced with an undreamt-of and disturbing scenario.

It is that the grand master plans of both 'parties of State' (an advisable term) are in disarray. Destroying Clegg tonight - or, better, having him destroy himself - is in the interests of both for entirely different reasons.

The point to understand is that the Liberal Democrat surge may be taking most votes from floaters and the New Labour libertarians but it is also taking the votes that the Tories needed to offset their losses to their Right.

The Tories have shifted on Europe, immigration and tax only to win this liberal vote. Now (disaster!), these disillusioned centrists are moving out of New Labour, yes, but not into the Tories. In a worst case scenario, Tory candidates might now be squeezed from both Right and Left.

Nightmare Scenarios

Meanwhile, the structure of British politics really does create a nightmare scenario where New Labour remains the largest party in seats but on the lowest national vote of all three.

Why is this dangerous? Because it threatens to blow wide open the tensions within British politics after the election in a way that could cause serious domestic civil disturbance. This needs explanation.

If New Labour is the largest party and can cobble together a Government, then it will be at the centre of the programme of cuts. It will have even more incentive to buy its way into office again in a second election through rewarding its base (public sector and regional) at the expense of the majority.

Liberal Democrat Clegg headed this option off at the pass by giving us all to understand that he would not support a Brown Administration under such circumstances but he was vague enough not to put out of court a different New Labour Administration that gave him at least a referendum on electoral reform.

The game is not power for fun but power to use the resources of the State to give your people what they want. The Liberal Democrats are only different from the other two parties in being driven not by economic struggle over resources but process - i.e. how communities can decide that struggle.

This is why the Labservative and State establishments fear them. An end to FPTP removes over night the buggins turn system where one side or another of the economic system takes hold of the State and adversarially grabs what it can while it can - until the electorate tires and shifts to the other side.

The State's Perspective

The State has a different perspective. Proportional representation ends 'leadership' which really means its ability to come to historic and periodic compromises with the two main parties' top dogs to manage the spoils in the 'national' interest (including the institutional interest of the Crown).

One of the instinctive drives behind the current revolt is an awareness that this system has broken down further under each political cycle. The State protects itself but only by cutting deals with its political masters that make the national interest into a sectional interest.

As time passes, the numbers excluded or bullied (the real meaning of the anger against regulation and 'political correctness') grows proportionate to the beneficiaries even if the numbers of direct beneficiaries (state employees under New Labour, for example) grows.

If PR becomes established, small fluid parties will periodically have a say in the spoils (much as Plaid Cymru is overtly saying that the English can get lost because it will steer more resources to Cardiff).  'Perestroika' will lead to 'glasnost' and so to the destruction of the old system.

On the down side for us all, it is likely to drive the country towards the sort of party kleptocracy that is standard fare in the Liberal Democrats' much beloved European Union. They see no problem with this but the Crown as a power machine does. The fate of Belgium beckons.

On the up side, this new system will stop State adventurism. The chances of a 'strong leader' lying their way to a major foreign war on the back of the Whip's Office become a great deal slimmer and mega-projects that suit business but disrupt communities become less certain.

What Is At Stake

The Liberal Democrat 'surge' was based on an intangible - a general rage in that part of the population that had not been included within the 'spoils' system of the two main parties and had been taken for granted. It ran its own life, oblivious of what insiders always knew - the system was rotten to the core.

This community really does want reform even if it might be naive about what liberal democratic European-style reform may actually mean in practice. What is clear to it is that the old politics cannot be trusted - pygmies run a system that was designed by giants for giants.

So, there is a great deal at stake in the Debate that has just started and in which we take little interest except in regard to its results. The performance is much less interesting than the take at the box office. The mass of the population might have an entertaining evening but the cash goes elsewhere.

If you think Clegg did well and the electorate agrees, then we are in for an exciting and stormy time. If he has any ability, he will trade his short burst of time in the FPTP sun for a referendum on electoral reform on terms that can exploit the momentum that he has created.

If he can win that referendum, the debates around it will create a very new European-style democracy that will mark the final end of the United Kingdom as an empire, a process that was started ideologically by the magician John Dee at the court of Queen Elizabeth.

If he fails to win that referendum (these are the stakes), the Liberal Democrats are probably dead in the water as a political force since it is only process that binds them together.

We cannot predict what would happen next but politics would take its course as new tweedledum-tweedledee coalitions of which one might well be a new progressive pro-European centre-left party.

And If Clegg Crashes Tonight?

But what if he crashes tonight? It is unlikely that he will lose all his 'surge' but much of the vote will slip back to the main parties, maybe a great deal of the marginal increase will go if each disillusioned faction of the other party fears the tweedledum-ism of the other.

Having detached themselves from tribal loyalty to New Labour, the tendency (we believe) is to cross the water into the Conservatives if Cameron does not come across as an old-style Tory on Europe, immigration or tax tonight - but the arrival of Blair as campaigner may cause others to wobble home.

In other words, the next seven days may be the most tense in British politics since the troubles of the 1970s. Much is at stake - not only for the nature of British democracy in the coming decades but for the national ability to hold the line if Spain goes down and the UK is next in line for a sovereign crash.

Do we have a recommendation on a vote? As private citizens, yes, but As It Happens is studiously non-partisan. We just try to point out the trajectories of decision-making.

The question comes down to this - do you have a stake in the existing system or do you not? If you do, you will, no doubt, vote for either Tweedledum or Tweedledee - though petty Celtic nationalists still have much to play for at home.

If you do not, you may be tempted to throw your vote away on protest or to drive the Liberal Democrat surge to a bloodless but very edgy revolution. Your decision. Your country. Your future.