The Strange Deaths of Political England

The Election of Fakes and Zombies

In June 1968, Alisdair MacIntyre, then a member of the International Socialists (he later switched to the Catholic Church when he became a Left-Thomist), gave a talk on BBC radio entitled ‘The Strange Death of Social-Democratic England’. MacIntyre referenced George Dangerfield’s political classic of 1935, The Strange Death of Liberal England, which explained how the Liberal Party had gone from being landslide election winners in 1906 to virtual oblivion as a political force within three decades. The Liberals, having created the welfare state which laid the basis for Labour’s social democracy, made enemies of those they ignored or excluded: trade unionists, suffragettes, pacifists, and both nationalists and Unionists in Ireland.

Under Harold Wilson’s Labour government (of 1964-1970), MacIntyre saw a similar unravelling process. MacIntyre highlighted the two basic premises of social democracy: that in capitalism class interests were in conflict with each other; and that parliamentary democracy could simultaneously contain and express that conflict. But one by one, Labour’s commitments of 1945 – such as progressive taxation, full employment, trade union rights, social housing, social security,  and devolution for Scotland – were being either abandoned or ‘reconsidered’.  MacIntyre noted the ‘grotesque degree of inequality’ persisting in Britain, with the richest 1 per cent receiving 12 per cent of total incomes.

As it turned out, the Labour Party wasn’t as dead as he imagined. The party lost the 1970 General Election to the Tories, but returned to power in 1974 with the promise to ‘Bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families.‘ What happened of course was the very opposite. Following the 1973 Oil Crisis sparked by the Arab-Israeli War, the British economy was wracked by rising inflation, high bond yields and borrowing costs, a growing balance of payments deficit and a public spending deficit. In 1976 Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan obtained a loan from the IMF to stabilise the UK economy, whilst drastic budget cuts were implemented.

After Callaghan lost the 1979 election, 17 years of Conservative rule ensued; the first ten of them under Margaret Thatcher. In 1983, the Labour right-wing chose to split the party and ensure years of Thatcherite rule rather than allow any opening for the Left alternative Tony Benn had been pushing for.

Margaret Thatcher, once asked what her greatest political achievement had been, replied ‘Tony Blair’. So in a sense MacIntyre’s thesis was proved right, as it showed that the Labour Party was dead as a real social democratic party.

The televised debates in the 2024 Election Campaign indicate that the zombification process has seeped into ALL the contending parties, all of whom come across as fakes: the Labour Party no longer represents labour; the Liberal Democrat Party is prepared to join in coalition with anyone who will have them – liberal or not; the Scottish National Party, despite years in office, have to all intents and purposes abandoned the goal of independence; Reform dreams of a retro neo-fascist revolution; the Conservative Party has proved it can’t conserve anything, hopefully even itself; the Green Party has greenwashed away its left radicalism; and the Trade Union and Socialism Coalition (TUSC) is a sect rather than a coalition.

In a key TV debate featuring the seven largest parties, the ‘red button’ question – would you unleash nuclear missiles if a military confrontation kicked off – was popped. None of them – including the NATO-supporting Green - came up with the honest answer: that the question was irrelevant because the UK’s so-called independent nuclear deterrent is a myth, as any decision about launching nuclear missiles would be politically and technically in the hands of US-led NATO.

Shadow cabinet office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds has said that Labour on assuming office might discover the public finances are “even worse” than expected. This has drawn the comment for Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies: ‘Oh dear, oh dear. The old "we may open the books and discover the situation is even worse...” The books are wide open, fully transparent. That really won't wash...’

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the UK is set to become increasingly poorer over the next decade. The economy will grow, but only because there will be more people in it, with badly paid jobs, increasingly reliant for survival on public services which are going to be cut: ‘Economic and market conditions mean the Government needs to run a primary surplus… of around 1.3% of GDP just to stabilise debt in the medium term.’ Taxes as a share of GDP will rise to 37.1% in 2028-29, but spending as a share of GDP will fall from 44.5% in 2024 to 42.5% in 2028-29.

None of the contenders in this election want to talk about how little room for manoeuvre there will be for any incoming government, even one with a super-majority. Starmer, having been spared answering any important questions by the media, has no mandate to deal with the stranglehold of foreign (especially US) capital on the British economy. The tax-avoiding tech giants, private equity asset-strippers, offshore tax havens, and narco money launderers all have corporate lawyers who are ready to hit questioners with SLAPPS (a form of legal harassment that exploits lengthy and expensive legal procedures to silence journalists, critics and watchdogs). All of the looters expect ‘stability’ and ‘security’; and Starmers job is to give them just that.

But, what do you expect: change?