Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong

Neal Lawson's piece in today's Guardian (A decade of Blair has left the Labour party on its knees)argues that Blair has been a huge disappointment and that the continuation or furtherance of reforms in the public sector under a new leader would be a monumental mistake.


I do not dislike Neal Lawson, nor do I disagree with everything he says - far from it. But on this I think he is wrong. What Neal forgets is that in 1997 we inherited a public sector that had, in large parts, been abandoned by the Tories for some 18 years. A public sector that, both philosophically and pragmatically, the Tories did not believe in. The Tory ministers and MPs of the 1980s and 1990s did not use the NHS, they sent their children to private schools and the closest they came to public transport was when they got into a London taxi.

Ten years of a Labour government and things are different. Talk to most doctors, nurses, police officers and teachers and they will agree that the extra funding for health, education and the police have made significant differences. Our great cities are being transformed via one of the biggest urban renewal programmes ever seen in Britain. The difficulty has not been in securing the necessary investment, it has been in securing the reforms that have needed to go with the additional investment to ensure that it impacts effectively.

The forces of conservatism that Blair referred to back in 1999 were so deeply embedded within some of our public services that we should not have been surprised that changing the culture in our schools and hospitals was going to be bloody. Neal appears to ignore the fact public sector had experienced massive, near-fatal under-investment for the 18 years of Tory rule. He also overlooks that many of these public services - education and health in particular - operated a two-tier system with often huge variations in the quality of service provided between one school and another or one hospital and another. Public services were, and to some extent remain, deeply unequal as league and performance tables in the NHS and schools illustrate. in 1997 the `best' schools were either private or in affluent areas; access to the best healthcare could be bought; the highest crime areas were in the lowest-income neighbourhoods; and public transport was most deficient in serving the most deprived housing estates.

Neal fails to acknowledge that throughout the Tory years the affluent and the well educated (many of them Labour members and supporters), were able to buy their way out of failing or inadequate provision - a situation the Tories `opting out' reforms of the 1980s encouraged. For some reason Neal is reluctant to admit that there have been some real improvements since Labour came to office in 1997. In England and Wales the number of heart operations each year has risen by over 30 per cent since 1997 - no patient is now waiting more than nine months for heart surgery. Over 98 per cent of patients referred by their GP with suspected cancer are now seen within two weeks, while 96 per cent of patients receive their treatment within a month's diagnosis of breast cancer.

In schools, we have the best primary tests, GCSE and A-Level results ever. Almost no infants are now in class sizes of more than 30 and 9,000 schools have new classrooms and facilities. More than 800 failing schools in England have been removed from special measures and turned around.

This is good stuff and the public wants to see more. Yet the reality is that many of the improvements of the past few years have been quick-fix and easy-win in nature. Real, transformational and long lasting change will take much longer. The battle (and it is a battle) to transform our public services is not yet won. Public services in Britain are still in the process of being revived and renewed yet there are many like Neal who apparently want to see not revival but reversal.

In the general election of 2005 Blair staked Labour's reputation on delivering further improvements in our public services; a Brown-led government would be wise to review this decision. Not because it is the wrong direction in which to proceed, but because it is a four, possibly five-term objective.

Neal appears to believe that Labour under Blair - or Gordon Brown - lacks a radical vision for the nation's future. He virtually accuses Blair of having achieved nothing because he hasn't tackled everything. Britain has got better since 1997, Blair and Brown have had their successes (and failures) - it is simply disingenuous of Neal not to admit as much.  


Display: Sort:

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#1)

Neal Lawson'spiece   is as  much about the  philosophy of New Labour as  its  practical consequences. He rightly  points out that  Blairite policy was pretty much always dictated  by the views and concerns, not of Labour's  traditional  followers, but by the readers of the Mail and the Sun.That remains the case today, as Liam Byrne's  new immigration policy panders  yet again to right-wing prejudice.Middle England rules. Pensioners   are left  in poverty, ( see what Labour did  to yesterday's amendments to the Pensions Bill)  while  City fat cats  get fatter.
Blairism courts the the market, individualism and the US.So will Brown.
Its "choice" agenda  is about social division, not collective action.
Neither Mike, do you mention Iraq. The cancer which continues to destroy lives and eat away at our  Party. We had  a 160-seat majority  in 1997. Almost anything was possible. The last four years have been a nightmare for anyone who still believes  in peace, internationalism, social justice and solidarity with the oppressed.
Yes, We  are the Party of the New Deal and the minimum wage, more spending on education and the NHS.
I'm afraid  we are  now more regarded as the  Party of War, hard-line immigration policy, student debt, friend to neo-con George  Bush, and betrayal of the values which inspired  the founding of the Labour Representation Committee in 1906. It makes me sick tomy stomach, frankly. Lawson is right. The problem is he is not radical enough.

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#3)

grimupnorth - of course Iraq is and was a mistake - but don't just blame Blair for this, the many decent, thoughtful and honourable Labour MPs who voted for the War are also culpable.

My issue with Neal Lawson is that he wrote a piece that suggested that the last ten years have been a complete waste of time, we have achieved nothing and that we were all conned. I think he is wrong - I am not an apologist for Blair or for new Labour but I do think we need to be balanced and fair in our criticisms.

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#4)


I think you make a number of fair points Mike.  I think we should guard against allowing the language of 'public sector reform' to be so limited.  At the moment it seems to be used entirely as a euphemism for privatisation or part-privatisation and marketisation.  As an educationalist, I know we've had more than enough of that sort of public sector reform, but that doesn't mean that I don't support reforming our public services, in the proper sense and meaning of that phrase.  I don't know if that's a criticism of Neal Lawson's words, or of you paraphrasing as I haven't read Neal's piece as carefully as I should yet (blame OFSTED!)

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#11)

"I think you make a number of fair points Mike.  I think we should guard against allowing the language of 'public sector reform' to be so limited.  At the moment it seems to be used entirely as a euphemism for privatisation or part-privatisation and marketisation."

With regards to public sector reform, this is an area wihch should have a thread all of its own as it is painfully clear that we have very little idea what public sector reform actually means.  

Essentially it means better management; to cheerish every pound spent and to set and achieve exceptional standards.  

However, too often it is bastardised into the idea that the private sector is best in all instances and wouldn't it be all the more convienent if everything were privatised.  

The irony is that it is implemented by civil servants who most often wouldn't recognise sound operational management if it were to smack them rather hard in the face repeatedly (although perhaps some of our hard pressed public sector managers may appreciate the opportunity to try).

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#10)

grimupnorth - of course Iraq is and was a mistake - but don't just blame Blair for this, the many decent, thoughtful and honourable Labour MPs who voted for the War are also culpable.

A mistake!!! over 250,000 innocent civilians DEAD, more than 100 UK soldiers DEAD, our international reputation DEAD, our 'ethical' foreign policy DEAD. Not to mention the creation of a utopia for terrorists and their recruitment sergeants, the creation of a hatred of a quarter of the world's population towards anything remotely british. You put this down to a 'MISTAKE' by 'thoughtful and honourable Labour MPs' Where do you park your rocket? what planet are you from? Neal Lawson was wrong, he failed to recognise that Blair, and every single one of his thoughtful and honourable compatriates who voted for this 'mistaken policy' should be indicted as war criminals for crimes against humanity.

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#12)

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that.Have just watched Ed Miliband on Question Time. Frankly, indefensible.

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#15)

The list of points upon which I and Grim have profound disagreement is endless. But I have to say I agree with her and 'newsnight' on this. This wasn't a 'mistake' by MPs who backed the war; it wasn't honourable. I really don't believe that there was and remains so little collective IQ that those MPs could not see like the rest of us, the catastrophe that was to come. It didn't take any genius to know that the action was wrong in law and wrong in consequences, right from the start. We can argue about the motives of Blair and the Neo Cons. We've argued about that from day one 1. There has never really been any argument about what the <u>outcomes</u> would  be, and those revisionists like Hain and Meacher are simply onastically fantasising we'll forget. It is tragic that so many lives have been lost as a consequence of blind loyalty and contemptible ambition.
One can almost feel the desire from people like Mike to draw a line in the sand at the point of Blair's departure and to say with him goes all our collective guilt for the horror of Iraq. However I believe the stain remains and yes I do still feel revulsion for the sycophants who against their own better judgement (honour - don't make me laugh) voted for this dispicable crime.

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#16)

pipesmoke

My reference to the 'honourable' MPs who voted for the war was genuine - not all of them were sychophantic 'pay-roll' voters, some thought long and hard about what to do and made a decision in good faith - that's what I mean by honourable.

The war in Iraq and the mess that the country is in now is a challenge for a future Labour leader. We do need a new strategy - one that brings in partners from the region (especially Iran and Syria). The problem is we also need regime change in the US if the strategy is to be effective.

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#17)

I'm sorry but we have to differ on this. No one doubts that there were some who thought long and hard. It's asking a lot to give up prospects of preferment; there were others who basically did what they were told with enthusiasm - (Hugh Bayley springs to mind).
Of course we have to move on. I wouldn't have stayed in the Labour Party if I didn't believe that and I still describe myself as New Labour. But let's not rewrite history. I don't really care what inner turmoil they went through balancing the right thing v their career. The most charitable thing that can be said was that they were balancing the right thing versus the survival of the Labour Government we had all worked so hard to  achieve. Should those MPs have brought down the Blair Government at that time? Of course they should; the inevitable lives that were to have been lost were always too high a price.  

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#18)

And, meanwhile, thousands will die.We need to get out of Iraq. As soon as  possible.  

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#19)

I was against the war in Iraq (and Blair's earlier wars against Afghanistan and Serbia), and most of the fears I had about what would happen if we supported the Americans were, sadly, proved right.  

But I don't think it is right to say that it was obvious before the war what would happen.  There were widespread predictions, for example, that Baghdad would become a 'second Stalingrad' with the Iraqis fighting to the death to defend Saddam's regime, and belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, and past experience of reports such as Amnesty's report that bombing Afghanistan in 2001 would lead to a quarter of a million refugees that winter) hadn't been proved right.  Robin Cook's resignation statement, brilliant as it was, did not predict the resistance to an occupation, or that many more lives would be lost after the fall of Saddam's regime than in removing it.  Before the war, no one predicted, either, that there would be elections in Iraq within two years with more than eight million people voting.

Much as I disagree with their decision, it is not clearly and obviously contemptible for Labour MPs to have made the judgement call that military action against Iraq would have ended up doing more good than harm, as seemed to be the outcome from Blair's previous wars, and I don't think their reasons for doing so can just be put down to blind loyalty or ambition.

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#20)

It's debates like this where I sometimes wish I had a religious faith so that I could defer judgement to a higher authority with a long white beard.
Obviously there are exceptions who felt they were doing good but I'm sorry but many of them and I'd go as far to condemn the majority of them as insincere. That is the nature of politics in this country - it rewards the ambitious and shallow. I couldn't do their job, it would send me into therapy. That said there was also insincerity within the ranks of those opposed to the war as I am the first to admit.
I don't have a solution but I refuse to let flotsam off the hook by acknowledging an honest and honourable mistake. Since I can't wish the perpetrators eternal torment, I can at least hope it gives them nightmares.

I know this is out of character for this site. As socialists we tend to be charitable and forgiving. This is one of very few issues that are beyond that and I'm sorry if the platitude that we can agree to disagree just doesn't work. j'accuse!

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#21)

pipesmoke - I think we can agree to disagree because what you are doing is making a judgement about the motives of the majority of Labour MPs who voted for the war in Iraq. I think we can guess at the motives of some but not all.

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#22)

Donpaskini

Voting for the war was never about predictitions of any outcomes or consequnces, if a vote for any war was influenced by the obvious outcome of thousands of lives being lost, then only a lunatic or a monster would vote aye. The fact is that every MP knew precisely what they were doing, and moreso they knew precisely why they were doing it. Those Labour MP's who voted for war were either toadies or criminally insane, there is no other conclusion you can come to using your theory of predicting any possible outcomes.

You rightly say that Robin Cook's statement was brilliant but you have failed to grasp it's meaning or reason. I think it was not Robin's intention to persuade anyone to vote in a particular way, it was a personal statement to inform his colleague MP's why he won't be voting with the Government in the debate on Iraq the following day.

Therefore, I think you are wrong to say that Labour MP's didn't vote for war in blind loyalty, it is obvious that they did; and for that, they are utterly contemptible.  

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#23)

Don's point about outcomes is incredibly important, you yourself cite the outcome of thousands of lives being lost as an outcome. The point is that when the decision to go to war was made your outcome you cite was not by any means the obvious outcome. There were studies that predicted disaster, but it would be impossible to point to any particular study as a wholly accurate prediction of events now and it certainly wouldn't have been possible in 2003.

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#6)

If I'm not wrong, the it was the Labour Party, not the LRC which was founded in '06. The Labour Party was, I believe, founded by the turn of the 19th century; in 1900 to be quite precise.

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#7)


The Labour Representation Committee was founded in 1900, the Labour Party in 1906.

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#8)

My thoughts exactly... Glad to get confirmation! I was afraid that I had suddenly fallen out of acquaintance with Lab. History! :-)

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#9)

I hope that was clear from my post which should have read... ,not the LRC, which... typing seems to damage my punctuation... :-)

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#13)

Whatever, the point remians the same....

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#14)

Fair enough...

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#2)


When did Neal Lawson start feeling this way?  He says in the article on election day, '97 (which is interesting) but I always think of Lawson as quite a New Labour figure, and I don't really understand where he was coming from (as far as that position was concerned) if it wasn't about repositioning the party in the interests of garnering middle england votes.

Re: Why I think Neal Lawson is wrong (#5)

I'm not sure if anyone read the magazine with the Guardian a couple of weeks ago, it was a very good analysis of 'The Blair Years'. Yes there is extra funding for schools and hospitals, but it doesn't necessarily mean there is more success. Don't get me wrong, they're probably better than hospitals and schools run by the Tory Government, but there has been no major progress. My analysis of the Blair years is that 1997-2001 was his missed oppertunity. Everyone apart from Blair thought we would win the next election. Bank of England independence, Minimum Wage, Devolution, Gay rights, and of course, his greatest achievement, the Northern Ireland process, were all fantastic. But Iraq is what people will think of, when they think of Blair. Blair made progress in many areas, but he wasn't radical enough. With a 179 seat majority, he could have produced a radical agenda, but he was crippled by the fear that we would lose in 2001.