John4Leader / World Trade - 11 comments
John McDonnell's campaign blog has been part of B4L for a couple of weeks now. It wasn't a difficult decision to add it: he's a sitting MP and he supports the party, even if (as judged by comments left on his blog) the opportunity to speak his mind in public exposes a pretty fundamental division between his vision of the Labour Party and what you could simplistically call the 'current' one.
My suspicion was that the temptation would be too great for a 'left-of-New-Labour' candidate to set out a principled case for worldwide democracy, development, and universal human values, given the mileage (within the party, and the 'diaspora') that could be made from simply conflating the most activist-unfriendly policy changes since 1994 (or, indeed, any political development since 1976), and standing against a chimera that embodies tuition fees, nuclear power, Iraq, Bush, Israel, Blair's character, religion, 'big business', 'spin', and so on. The woolliness and incoherence that comes from trying to build support from a coalition of 'antis' rather than 'pros' is the worst possible way to challenge the captivating vision - only partially realised - that Tony Blair set out before 1997.
Who amongst us isn't looking for a radical left-of-centre programme that challenges income and power inequalities, employs policies on the basis of their effectiveness, is public-private neutral, offers no special favours to particular genders, races, or religions, and isn't motivated by sentiment for a decade (choice quote here), bureaucracy, state control, and geopolitical insularity?
The throwing of policy tidbits to activists was repugnant enough when the Conservatives used to bring up capital punishment and worse at their Party Conferences, without us resorting to the kind of anti-Israeli and anti-American raw-meat that is present on John's blog. Of course there are elements of truth, but credibility is sacrificed along the way.
Concentrating on John's WTO post (see last link), it is unlikely that readers will consider him the sole authority on the matter and not consult elsewhere, but - while the USA undoubtedly shares culpability for the apparent collapse of the World Trade talks - John's need to push the anti-American button allows him to avoid all references to economics and the actual trading aspect of trade, lets Europe and the non-European developed nations of the hook, and incoherently suggests an American motivation to foster big business, free trade, and protectionism. And, frankly, the idea that Noam Chomsky can produce a credible critique of the WTO is too ridiculous for words.
Some more useful links:
- Owen Barder, on the Top five trade myths
- Stumbling and Mumbling vs. Martin Jacques, on (Why) does free trade favour the rich?. Warning: it actually talks about international trade.
- The Global Development blog on Where is the U.S. Leadership on Trade?
- This week's Economist - leader is a 'premium' article, sadly.
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
11 comments so far...
First of all, I am pleased that Johnâs leadership challenge is already succeeding in one of its first tasks â to promote debate.
It is also kind of you to set out the preconceived notions with which you begin your criticism on this point. If you come to Johnâs campaign expecting to find âthe woolliness and incoherence that comes from trying to build support from a coalition of 'antis' rather than 'pros'â then it is no big shock when that is what you find, is it?
It is also very easy to caricature arguments which you wish to oppose â call them âanti-Israeliâ or âanti-Americanâ and you spare yourself the task of engaging with and contesting the ideas themselves.
I could try the same trick in response and caricature you as a disappointed Blairite who believed that Blair was somehow radical â but (even though it is Saturday evening and Iâd sooner be having a beer) I wonât disrespect you like that. I would instead like to explain why as a Labour Party member, I think that Johnâs brief comments on the trade talks are sound.
John is right on his blog - there is indeed a savage irony. The Bush regime, the greatest advocate of free market, neo-liberal economics, is indeed demanding that its transnational companies be protected from competition from the developing world but at the same time calling upon developing countries to open up their economies to rabid exploitation and product dumping by the US.
In what is â since the collapse of the Soviet Union â a unipolar world, it is not âanti-Americanâ to observe that the single global superpower bears disproportionate responsibility for developments in trade talks (and in global politics generally). It just recognises the world as it is.
I accept that in that one comment, John does not advance a detailed alternative policy position. But then Johnâs blog is just that â a blog â and you canât expect to see a fully worked out policy position in every comment. If you visit the Labour Representation Committee website (www.l-r-c.org.uk) you will find some of the positive âproâ policies (to use your phrase) which you hope for from the left.
For example, on world trade, the LRC has said that a real Labour Government would;
⢠Raise overseas aid expenditure to 1% of GDP, and end the linking of UK aid to policies of economic liberalisation and privatisation.
⢠Campaign to fund UN and World Bank aid and development schemes by a Tobin tax on speculative movements of capital.
⢠Demand the exclusion of water, electricity, healthcare and education from the WTO agreement on GATS, and from EU bilateral and regional trade agreements.
⢠Lead in establishing an international tax regime for corporation tax.
This is the sort of positive programme which the left believes in â what is the positive programme of others within the Party, who wish to support other candidates in the forthcoming leadership election. What are you in favour of comrades?
Thanks again btw for engaging in the debate.
John - hi,
Before we go on, I should just say that I was in the middle of a post about your Amnesty proposals, so don't take its imminent arrival as an attempt to butter you up, so to speak.
Will respond to your points above in my next comment, shortly.
I'm back.
OK, has Johnâs leadership challenge promoted debate? I'd say no - nothing out of the ordinary for the blogosphere - but I'm sure we'd all welcome it when it really kicks off, and it's within his power to make it do that.
Yes, I had preconceived notions about John's campaign, (a) because the LRC doc is in the public domain, and (b) because the Blair/Bush/neo-con/privatisation/any-reform-that-impinges-on-the-public-sector-must-be-bad angle is pushed so remorselessly elsewhere. I don't think - in general - that I've been at all hard on him, but that until he stops throwing bones to his perceived supporters, and undergoes the same process that 'New Labour' has - answering the questions the electorate has posed since 1979 - then, basically, he's not only failing to act as a proper opposition, but failing even to prepare the ground for a future big-name contestant.
By any standards, John's WTO post was one-sided. The LRC does have more to say (though no link was provided to the relevant page), but why the need to single out one country? Other sources (that I cited) told a very different story. Unfortunately, either someone misrepresnted the situation to John, or he chose to yank the chain of his perceived supporters. He won't last long in blogging with that attitude.
A quote from my Economist:
"No one country is to blame: many of the participants are culpable. India wanted fewer farm subsidies and lower tariffs but was unwilling to reduce barriers to farm goods and industrial products; the EU wouldn't cut its farm tariffs; America, the animating spirit behind earlier trade rounds, declared that a bad deal was worse than no deal at allâand meant it. The underlying rationale of unilateral trade liberalisation had been buried and forgotten long ago."
What I'd be interested to hear is if John has a take on the matter that shows he understands the issues and has a way forward, or perhaps that he doesn't support free trade at all and that the entire Doha thing is a distraction from 'national' economics, or the real issues of... etc.
BTW, there was talk on the forum (which you're encouraged to join) about discussing the LRC programme.
Finally, I don't think I'd support the +ve proposals you raised: the Tobin Tax has taken a lot of serious flak over the last 10 years. Also, attempting to fix corporation taxes attempts to slow globalisation and would pull the rug away from smaller countries who may have few other ways of competing against richer economies in Western Europe. I would certainly support increased aid (skills more than money); not sure about the water, electricity, healthcare and education thing - would have to read the LRC doc again.
Who amongst us isn't looking for a radical left-of-centre programme that challenges income and power inequalities
Well, you for starters.
When presented with evidence of widening inequality under Labour, you simply thew up you hands and said this was simply as a result of economic growth, and not much could be done. That's a classic Thatcherite position, not a social democratic one.
As I understand it, part of what John wants to do is to develop policy ideas through dialogue. I would have to accept that the starting point of the Labour Left is fairly Labour Left in terms of its taste and feel - but I expect and believe that the orientation of John's campaign will be outwards to people who not only don't now see themselves as his supporters but have no idea who he is (or what the Labour Left is).
There is a tension in relation to issues about international trade in that there are two ways to address the issues. Either one can articulate an alternative vision of how the whole process should go forward - or make some limited proposals about what a UK Government could do given the current state of affairs.
I also accept that there is more to be done to promote debate around these and other issues - and not only here in the blogosphere. We also need informed debate in Labour Party and trade union branches, in campaigning organisations, even in the pub...
I hope that others will join this discussion either here or elsewhere.
Coming from the anti-war, anti-capitalist left, I obviously have major differences with you - differences I will deal with in a second. But some of your accusations are just unfair. For instance, one of the best aspects of McDonnell's politics is that he cannot be lumped in with the reactionary "anti-imperialist", cultural relativist "left" of groups like Respect. Witness his positions on issues like religious schools, the so-called religious hatred bill etc, support for secular and democratic forces in the Middle East etc.
McDonnell's campaign DOES, it seems to me, stand for univeral, humanist values, but it recognises that these values demand opposition to capitalism and the neo-liberal and pro-war agenda of the current Labour leadership.
Obviously you don't agree with this vision, as evidence by the fact that you want a politics that is "public-private neutral"! I can't speak for the McDonnell campaign, being only a rank-and-file supporter of it, but I think most of us would agree that we favour public ownership (real, democratic public ownership, not bureaucratic state control) over private. That's because we're, you know, socialists...
Sacha Ismail
[...] most of us would agree that we favour public ownership (real, democratic public ownership, not bureaucratic state control) over private. That's because we're, you know, socialists...
Aha - now there's an opportunity for John to make some real progress. I can't recall seeing him propose this in the past, but if he used his candidacy to promote cooperative/mutual ownership throughout the current public and private sectors then I'm convinced that all sorts of people will prick up their ears, and I'd be happy to publicise the proposals here.
I'm glad that John is apparently keen to promote discussion and dialogue. Perhaps this could begin with a less stringent policy on approving comments on his blog? I posted what wasn't really an overly critical comment - indeed, I welcomed his standing in any leadership election - and it wasn't approved.
Having said that, I'll be quite happy to oppose his campaign, "opposition to capitalism and the neo-liberal and pro-war agenda of the current Labour leadership" and all.
Rob, yes, that's true about the comment moderation. There are very few comments up there and it's hard to believe - based on your one - that reasonable and inoffensive ones haven't ended up on the cutting-room floor.
"opposition to capitalism and the neo-liberal and pro-war agenda of the current Labour leadership" is just guff, intended to speak to his target audience, and forget about everyone else. I am still interested though (see above) on the offchance he tries to move beyond the statist, bureaucratic LRC programme towards something more radical and imaginative.
I am pleased this site has chosen to discuss Johnâs Politics rather then simply resort to ranting about them like I see my union General secretary Dave Prentis has chosen to do in the latest UNISON publication. What should be a real concern to those on this blog is will the debate we are having here on this blog be the debate we have in the party as a whole. I ask you do Johns views of public service not private profit. Support of the trade union freedom bill, support for bringing our troops back home ASAP, support for not spending millions of pounds on trident replacement and support for policies passed at Labour party conference (see we can all be positive if we try) not have a large resonance in the party. Of cause they do. We need to put pressure on our MPâs via our CLPâs and Trade Unions to ensure they nominate John so the party can make a genuine choice about the future direction.
You ask, has Johns leadership challenge promoted debate?
Well I've found a new energy in those I've met from the left of the party who had all but given up hope on the direction the party seems to be heading.
Lets see how many renew their membership to gain the opportunity
to express their thoughts via the ballot box.
Post a Comment
<< Home