Labour conference: late news just in
I know it's Mitford-related, but allow me to run this passage by you in full, as it resonates somewhat. It's taken from Nicholas Mosley's splendid first biography of his dad, Oswald Mosley, Rules Of The Game. In 1929, Mosley was a Labour MP (having been a Conservative MP, and an independent), and a frustrated minister without portfolio in Ramsay MacDonald's government. He was charged with sorting out the growing unemployment problem - which had tipped one million - and found his famous 15-page Memorandum on the subject effectively buried by a meek, posturing Labour cabinet. In a way, the contents of that document are not important here (nor the fact that he would turn to fascism in the 1930s, nor eventually marry a Mitford sister!), rather, the familiarity of what Nicholas writes of the Labour government of 1929. Bear with it - and the author's overenthusiasm for colons:Those who had been in the Labour party or indeed in any political tradition for a long time knew that in some sense all this had to be a game: you had good intentions: you honestly professed them in your manifestos: you hoped by this to get power: none of this was cheating. But when you did get power of course there were often realities which were stronger than the good intentions you had had: you were forced to adapt yourself to realities not because you were betraying your good intentions, but because if you did not you might be betraying other good principles more severly. There was often a choice of evils: you had sometimes, possibly, to do almost nothing. But you could not quite say this. Political language had to be about will, and dynamism, or there would never be hope of improvement.
When [Mosley] made his proposals for strong central government machinery they [Labour] could not attack him directly because, as socialists, this is what they had always been advocating; how else could they have got as far as they had with evolutionary or revolutionary change? But it was by instinct that they feared the exaggerated implementation of government control: there is nothing more irrational, they knew, than human beings who have been given total power - even to act in such a way as they think is wholly rational. But still, they could not quite say this, or how would they ask for, or be given, any power at all? Both they, and the people who voted for them, had to pretend they could be trusted with power: and it was still in fact by dealing in limited power that people could strive and hope bit by bit for reasonable change. But all this only made sense if it was held together by rules of an instintively accepted political game - rules that were known, but not stated, on a supra-rational level.
One of the rules of the game was that you could not exactly explain what was and what was not a game: if you did, then the someone who did accept that there was a game could simply make you seem a hypocrite.
MacDonald's first Labour government had lasted nine months, in 1924, although they passed a couple of useful acts providing unemployment benefit and cheaper housing; it was buddying up to the Bolsheviks that did for them. His second lasted only two years, having resolutely failed to handle ... oops! ... the economic crisis of 1929, which saw unemployment spiral to two and half million by 1930. As true today as it's always been. (And anyone else get the vibe of Fight Club from that last paragraph?)
posted by Andrew Collins @ 8:25 AM
9 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
9 Comments:
this thread seems like it'll be less popular but as someone who has recently JOINED the labour party - partly due to thinking about how horrific any Tory govt is likely to be - I will wade in. And rage against the waves of popular opinion... The 1929 Labour gov. certainly had the world and his wife (as she had just got the vote on the same terms as men in 1928) stacked up against them. It's those sort of *little* details that labour always get right. Universal sufferage? I'm not sure the Tories thought that was a very good idea. I wonder how the Mitford sisters lined up the subject - as females of differing political persuasions.
All govts are suffering at the moment, the only difference in britain is the lynch mob mentality to wound Gordon Brown, his own political/public relations ineptitude & the stage of the electoral cycle we are at right now. If he'd gone for a snap election a year ago & won/lost/hung the parliament out to dry - we'd just be more accepting of the current shite situation and not blaming it so squarely on the rugged one-eyed Heathcliffe lookalike and his weak jawed chums.
1929 --->>>2008
Dennis 'Cutty' Wise: The game done changed...
Slim Charles: Game's the same, just got more fierce.
Personally I'm glad: The colon has for too long been in the long grass: More Colons I say: Just say NO to the semi colon: It is the weak pretender: In fact: let's promote: the: colon: to: that: of: the: full: Point:.:
Mitford sisters rule, whooo yeah!
Doughboy, was Dennis 'Cutty' Wise talking about the situation at the 'Toon' when he made that very pertinent comment? The game sure done changed up there...
David, Liverpool
It's remarkable to see something about politics that goes back past 1979, and it's very interesting that it all sounds exactly the same as what goes on now. Different crises, different faces, same scripts.
Yes, it is very Fight Club, which is really scary if you think about it for more than ten seconds.
Doughboy, how interesting to hear from a member of the Labour party! I joined briefly, in the late 80s and then left, rather melodramatically, after the pathetic defeat in 1992. I'm not sure my hatred of the Tories matches my crushing disappointment with Labour. Imagine if, when the Tories get in, they really do scrap ID cards? What an upside down world that will be.
The problem is that one man's decisive leadership using its mandate to improve life for everyone is another man's dictatorship. We can look at the post-WWII Labour government and say that was great. But I know that some people still think Thatcher did a lot of good. Obviously everyone wants a Government that's going to come in and sort everything out, but we all mean something different by that. The older I get, the more wary I become of people who are certain, and the less certain I become myself. It's why I'm so irked by the anti-religion "scientists" and it's why I'm scared of "strong" government. And yet I still want them to just sort it all out.
Still, imagine if Labour stay in long enough to see ID cards get off the ground. In many years to come people might be saying, "Look at that. They managed to introduce ID cards into Britain. Can you imagine a Government daring to do that now?"
The ID Card/little govt/42 days (not as good as the first two films I thought) proposals do sound quite nice in a lot of ways and I do wish the labourists would get with the program at bit more. Prospect's policy document with surprisingly wise words from Hazel Blear's says lots of nice things which probably won't happen. They fear the Daily Mail/Murdoch too much I suspect. Fact is: where I live: lots of new schools are being built: the Royal Infirmary is being massively rebuilt: there's a Sure Start centre down the road for the little uns - what happens if the Tories get back in - and make billion pound cuts. EMA for 6th form/college kids goes, Sure Start goes, free nursery places get replaced by meaningless vouchers. family tax credits go, the minimum wage gets forgotten.
smoking in pubs probably comes back. sorry to rant...
As for Dave Cameron, I wish I hated him more than I do. Bring back Michael Howard:
http://friendlykid.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-i-am-gay-for-david-cameron.html
"it was buddying up to the Bolsheviks that did for them . . ."
Bit unfair to characterise the forged Zinoviev letter in those terms.
Post a Comment
<< Home