Skip to main content

Tony Benn, Thatcher and New Labour

One aspect of left-wing politics that irritates me is the propensity for those on the left to assume that theirs is the only moral position on the big issues of the day and in particular war and peace - everyone else is a war criminal or traitor to the cause. The same of course applies to right-wing politicians. There is an implied and often explicit distaste for those of the middle ground. What the left and right cannot accept is compromise. They talk about standing on principle - and we tend to admire more those who 'stand by their beliefs'.

Yet practical politics is the art of compromise. I have little doubt that Bevan was right in the compromises he made with the birth of the National Health Service - and compromises he made in dealing with the then opposition of the medial professions. Now, nobody believes that Bevan was not a man of great passion and principle. Indeed, when he could no longer compromise, as over the imposition of prescription charges, he resigned from the government - and Wilson also followed suit. Bevan also stood on principle when he argued that unilateral nuclear disarmament would be wrong - but then of course the left would rather put that aside as an aberration.

Harold  Wilson was of course noted later for, as he saw it, the virtue of pragmatism. The truth is that a bit of pragmatism goes a long way in getting things done. It was Wilson's pragmatism more than those of us marching in protest, that enabled him to say no to President Johnson's repeated requests for British troops on the ground in the Vietnam war. Few these days will applaud Wilson as being 'a man of beliefs' - and yet he was, just as surely as was Tony Benn. It serves little purpoe to distort history in creating the divide between 'those who stood by their principles' and those who compromised to get things done! Governing involves more than simply standing your ground.

Tony Benn and others of the Left were willing not only to oppose the Wilson and Callaghan governments but also to undermine them as traitors that didn't do what they said they would do. This of course is true if you accept their interpretation of what it was they were supposed to do! But I believe the achievements of the Attlee, Wilson and Callaghan governments are much greater than given credit at the time and certainly by those on the left. Increasingly, Wilson's premiership, at the time dominated by financial crises, is seen as advancing socially, particularly in spending on housing, social welfare, health and education.

My criticism of Tony Benn then is that he failed to support those and work with those who also wanted to change society for the better. His was an attitude of mind that said that only what he thought was right. On that he was wrong, no matter how much we grew to love him. That 'love' was increasingly proportionate to his remove from power, government and influence.

I know that this is not going to be liked by my left wing friends. But what I cannot accept is that in not speaking ill of the dead we must distort history. Arguably, the likes of Tony Benn did more than most to ensure 18 years of Thatcher governments and the birth of New Labour.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As