STALIN TAKES TO THE VALLEYS
Sion Simon explains what the
Welsh Labour troubles tell us about Mr Blair
RED KEN Livingstone is not, after all, to be the first elected mayor of London. As predicted in The Spectator some months ago, a National Executive Committee panel will see to that. Against the back- ground of similar events in Scotland and Wales, the ill-informed adduce the sidelining of Ken as evidence of a terrify- ingly authoritarian government machine in action. In truth, the decision to submit Mr Livingstone to the same interview procedures as every Welsh Assembly can- didate, every Scottish Parliamentary can- didate and every by-election candidate was taken completely autonomously by the Greater London Labour Party with- out reference to No. 10. The mundane reality behind the outrageous hype is that the psycho-killer spin-doctors from hell who control each waking thought of every single Labour member did not even know that the relevant meeting was taking place until they heard it on the radio.
The media, who now have to work harder for their stories than they ever have before, are in love with the idea that New Labour is interested in nothing but `control'. And Tony Blair, of course, is the chief 'control freak'. I myself have often called him a Stalinist. The massively over-mythologised triumvirate of Mr Blair, Mr Peter Mandelson and Mr Alas- tair Campbell are known to be `centralis- ers' whose mission is to 'concentrate power' in the hands of the `Millbank Ten- dency' at the expense of 'ordinary party members'. These phrases, and others sim- ilar, have been so badly overused that they have become clichés. Unlike better tried and tested dicta such as 'time heals', `truth hurts' and `haec olim meminisse juvabit', however, the received wisdom about the 'control freak tendency' is not so obviously laden with verity.
Put most plainly, how can a picture of Mr Blair as a ruthless Stalinist be recon- ciled with his apparent inability to install leaders of whom he approves in any of the devolved institutions his government is creating? The Greater London Labour Party may have kept Ken out, but that doesn't explain Blair's difficulty in getting Alun Michael in. I am not aware that his- tory records many occasions upon which Comrade J. Djugashvili was 'unable to get his man in' to important regional and municipal posts. Indeed I seem to recall that when Mrs Thatcher was faced with a London leader she detested (a certain K. Livingstone, was it not?), she abolished an entire tier of regional government in order to put an end to his popularly acclaimed career.
So Blair is obviously not the ordinary type of control freak. One is tempted to conclude that, since he is a freak only as regards his unfeasibly large parliamentary majority, and since he patently is not exercising very much control, perhaps the term is something of a misnomer.
Yet such iron associations as that between New Labour and cultish levels of political control do not simply appear in the newspapers, as if from some fourth dimension behind the crossword puzzle. There must be reasons why these people have come to be so perceived. Fortunate- ly, the government's difficulties over devolution provide a useful guide for those still struggling with their GCSE in New Labour Studies.
When he talks about Inclusivity', Blair is expressing the sincere and radical belief that our politics would benefit if all parties sought common ground where they could, rather than simply exploiting division and weakness. But his interest in consensus is strictly limited. It is a state he is always keen to encourage in com- peting third parties. The TUC and the CBI must slug it out until they reach a consensus. But, despite the nonsense talked about focus groups and opinion polls, he does not really go in for consen- sus himself. Negotiation is for people pre- pared to cede the principle to the outcome. For Blair it is a question of one or the other: if there is a principle at stake, then it will be indivisible in his mind from the outcome. And, as Prime Minister, he prefers to announce, rather than negotiate, outcomes. If there is no big idea at stake, then he sees the process entirely managerially. But the most important line in Philip Gould's recent book is the one which quotes Blair saying, `I suggest you go away and refocus your focus groups.'
Mr Campbell has certainly been handi- capped by the Prime Minister's determi- nation not to compromise on the choice of Welsh leader, post-Ron. The shallow edifice of Rhodri Morgan's recent celebri- ty having been constructed entirely on foundations of hatred for Tony Blair, the Prime Minister is right to insist that Mr Morgan shall not be permitted to use the new National Assembly as a vehicle to give voice to his bitterness. Mr Blair was mistaken, nevertheless, in insisting that trusty Alun Michael be the new leadership candidate. Mr Michael is not popular among Labour members in Wales, and may consequently lose a ballot even among the electoral college which is weighted (via the unions and the Parlia- mentary Labour Party) in Blair's favour. There was another candidate, the Euro MP Wayne David, who would have been a far more palatable choice in Wales, and would have considered it a privilege to toe the Blairite line 99 per cent of the time. He would never have set the world alight, but he would have done perfectly well for the moment.
What is interesting is that Blair knew all this before he made the decision, but did not care. When it comes to his own chil- dren — the Labour grassroots — the dis- ciplinarian father Blair is rigidly unforgiving. He doesn't want Wayne, he wants Alun. He is not going to kowtow to a load of boyos in the valleys and end up with Wayne bloody David, whom he doesn't like and doesn't trust, when his old mate Alun is primed and ready to do the job. Oh no. Not bloody likely. He is the bloody Prime Minister after all. In that sense Blair is a Stalinist (or you might call it Thatcherite, or Bevinesque or Churchillian, or any other adjective derived from the name of any number of strong-willed people from all walks of life).
What remains to be seen is what hap- pens if Alun Michael loses. Blair has suf- fered reverses in the elections to Labour's National Executive Committee, but never in an election to anything so important as the leadership of the National Assembly for Wales. That perhaps explains why his determination to win and the importance he attaches to this matter are so great. (They are much underestimated.) But it remains quite possible that he may lose. As a Welsh socialist who believes in devo- lution, I hope Mr Michael wins, because I want to see Wales make the best of a his- toric opportunity. But as a journalist I cannot help but be curious about how Blair would deal with an Assembly run by Rhodri Morgan. Stalin would have burned it; Thatcher would have banned it; Bad Blair, I suspect, would bond with it.
SiOn Simon writes a weekly column in the Daily Telegraph.
Previous page
