Lib-Lab-Con: the new Transformismo

Ken King, a Left Unity member in Hertfordshire, writes.

‘They’re all the same!’ is a view many an activist, political commentator, teacher has heard when the subject of elections and politics is discussed, and usually refers to the three main parties. As Slavoj Zizek put it; “Critics of our institutional democracy often complain that as a rule, elections do not offer a true choice. For the most part what we get is a choice between a centre-right and a centre-left party whose programs are virtually indistinguishable.” Is this an accurate description of the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats in Britain today? Are we ruled by a trio-edged self-serving clique? Is Britain heading towards its own Transformismo?

In historical terms, Transformismo was a period in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries – whereby the two Italian main parties, liberal and conservatives, had eventually merged together to form a cohesive whole. At an ideological level – they were, in essence, the same entity. Giovanni Giolitti, an Italian statesman, became prime minister five times over a twenty year period. A liberal himself, he was able to choose cabinets from members of both parties over this time. Now it could be argued, that at that time, there was a limited electorate and both parties were not the highly structured organisations of their modern-day counterparts. But the perception of most Italians at the time – observing how Transformismo had led to high levels of cronyism and corruption of public life – resulted in the alienation of many people towards politics and the parliamentary system. The resultant corruption was endemic. As a result many Italians turned away from official politics as they saw no difference between the two main parties – they were, quite literally, the same thing. This led to a huge disillusionment in the electoral system –and – after 1919 – was one factor in the attraction of Mussolini’s early fascist movement.

Has this process reached full maturity in Britain today? Has the Transformismo process even begun? And if it is – how far down the road is it?

It could be argued that this process began with the ideological triumph of Thatcherism in Britain during the 1980s. At least in parliamentary terms – it seemed as if the Thatcher steamroller would crush all before it. But this was nothing to do with Thatcher herself as an individual – she was merely the cheer lady for the New Right wave that was sweeping the ruling class of Britain (as Ronald Reagan was in the US) as part of the counter-revolution against social democracy and the welfare state. But her three electoral victories convinced many of the ruling class – not least the upper echelons’ of all three main parties – that the rampant free-market was the only path to follow. So what Thatcherism did do – was successfully push Britain – and its main parliamentary parties – further to the right. This – rather than the Falklands or winning elections – was the true legacy and triumph of Thatcherism. This led to the slow but eventful drift towards Transformismo in Britain.

There is compelling evidence that – while not yet reaching the symbiotic levels under Giolitti – the Transformismo development is already well under way in this country. For example, in April 2012 the Hansard Society annual ‘audit of political engagement’ revealed that “30% of respondents said that if an election were called tomorrow, they would not vote.” Hansard’s Director of government programme, Dr Ruth Fox, claimed that “The public seem to be disgruntled, disillusioned and disengaged.” A situation exacerbated by the constant flow of political scandal – most notably the stench of cronyism and corruption – whichever of the main parties are in power. John Major’s government collapsed in a mire of corruption. Tony Blair’s administration had the Bernie Ecclestone affair and the ‘cash for honours’ scandal – and numerous others – which resulted in him earning the embarrassing honour of being the only serving British prime minister to be interviewed by the police.

This culminated in the MPs’ expenses scandal – which involved all three main parties. This, in particular, really resonated badly with the public. There were hundreds of examples, but who will forget, that at a time of growing austerity, cuts and unemployment amongst ordinary people, the claim by Sir Peter Viggers of £1,645 of tax-payers’ money for a duck house in his country estate. There were many more incredible examples of self-serving greed and corruption too numerous to mention. In 2006, the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust published a report on ‘Power to the People: The report of power, an independent Inquiry into Britain’s democracy’ in which the much-lauded democracy, and its parliamentary system, did not come out too well. Amongst other things, it said there was a ‘well-ingrained popular view across the country that our political institutions and their politicians are failing, untrustworthy, and disconnected from the great mass of the British people’.

Eric Hobsbawm also pointed out that the changes taking place around parliamentary politics in recent years would damage the relationship between rulers and ruled. He argued that here in Britain, citizens’ faith in official parliamentary democracy is on the sharp decline as a result:

“Even in Britain, the striking centralisation of an already strong decision-making power gone hand-in-hand with a demotion of the House of Commons and a massive transfer of functions to unelected institutions, public or private, under both Conservative and Labour governments. A good deal of politics will be negotiated and decided behind the scenes. This will increase the citizens’ distrust of government and lower their opinion of politicians.”

Now, in the past, when the government became entangled in various scandals (as the last three governments have), it has been easy for the opposition to cry ‘Corruption! Time for an election! Vote for us! We are squeaky clean!’ as an alternative in waiting. The official opposition can stand back, watch the government sink in a quagmire of their own making – and wait to be elected while hoping the electorate have short memories of their last stay in 10 Downing Street. The interesting factor around this particular scandal is that all three main parties were involved! So now there is no official squeaky-clean opposition in waiting. This only heightened the strong feeling with the electors in increasing numbers that all three major parties are the same. They are all corrupt – there is no difference between them.

But the main factor here is the ideological convergence of the three main parties – to such an extent that they are indistinguishable from each other. All three main parties support the free market, asylum-seeker bashing, the war in Afghanistan, the cuts in public services (and all three main parties are implementing them throughout the UK), the European Union and the anti-union laws. On all major points – there is nothing to separate them. David Willetts, the Conservative shadow education minister, describes the current debate between the three main parties as “Rather like a contest between different blends of coffee or whiskey.” The Liberal Democrats (or the Liberals, to be precise), having not run the country for almost a century, are usually the beneficiaries when the public grow tired of the two main party shenanigans. Now they are in government – implementing the same free-market policies with the same enthusiasm as the Conservatives and Labour, ditto, they are all the same.

And while it may be argued that the Conservatives, Liberals and Labour are all capitalist parties, with each comprising their factions and tendencies, this development has been severely eroded in recent decades. Look, for example, at the Labour Party. While this author contends that Labour was never a socialist party – even from the outset in the early twentieth century – it is argued that this party contained elements of socialism, individuals and small factions. The right wing always dominated in the Labour Party, even when the left was at its strongest in the early 1980s. But the vicious anti-socialist witch-hunts of Neil Kinnock – that drove thousands out of the party – continued under John Smith, and the process was completed by Blair. The ditching of Clause 4 was the eradication of the last part of socialism within the Labour Party – long before they were too embarrassed to sing The Red Flag at party conferences. Simon Jenkins, in his book, Thatcher and Sons: A Revolution in Three Acts, successfully argues that not only John Major, but that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were all devotees of Thatcherism and that there was absolutely no difference between the policies of all three administrations. Jenkins, himself a Thatcherite, gleefully embraces Blair and Brown as one of his own. But more important than his personal view – he points out an alarming fact for many: “At the 2005 election all three major party manifestos subscribed to the Thatcherite consensus.”

By the time of the 2010 general election it was even more apparent that all three main parties were indistinguishable from each other. There was little difference in their pronouncements, speeches and party manifestos. For example; the Datastore at the Guardian newspaper revealed that in a comparison of Labour and Conservative 2010 manifestos, the former used the word ‘national’ 68 times to the latter’s 64. Labour say ‘reform’ 47 times, Conservatives 48. And so on and so on. There were many other such similarities throughout the two manifestos.

There was so little to differentiate between the parties in the last two general elections that journalists, political scientists, the media and the public were treated to a gladiatorial personality clash between the three leaders. It ultimately all boiled down to whom ‘you’ could trust between the three men. This is why – for the first time ever in 2010 – we had the American-style television debate between the Lib-Lab-Con leaders – because we had already followed the US in having presidential-style face-offs, candidates who were in charge of two indistinguishable cliques; further evidence of Transformismo in Britain.

Even within the debates – all the mainstream parties copycat each other – often attempting to ‘outbid’ each other. When the Conservatives said they would cut the threshold for death-duties – funded by a tax on wealthy foreigners – Labour quickly followed suite with exactly the same proposal. This ‘outbidding’ process often just involves minor details such as who can bash the most single mums, asylum seekers, unemployed or build the most prisons to house them all in. There is absolutely no difference in ideology or substance between them – just presentation.

When George Galloway won the seat at Bradford West for the Respect party, then-Conservative MP Douglas Carswell acknowledged that this was due to the public’s growing disconnection with the main parties. “There is a sense that we are governed by a little Westminster clique and in a sense it’s right,” he admitted.

While claiming that all three central parties are indeed capitalist parties, whose allegiance is to the prevalent socio-economic order – and have always been so – there is now an important difference. This author has contended that during the Thatcher years a fundamental change began that saw the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties merge together at an ideological level – a fusion that is well on its way towards completion; a Transformismo in Britain.

References.
“The End of the Party.The Rise and Fall of New Labour.” Andrew Rawnsley
“A Short History of the Liberal Party. The Road back to Power.” Christopher Cook
“The Year of Dreaming Dangerously.” Slavoj Zizek, P14.
“Globalisation, Democracy and Terrorism”, Eric Hobsbawm, P111.
“Thatcher and Sons: A Revolution in Three Acts.” Simon Jenkins.
news.bbc.co.uk/1hi//uk_politics/4904198.
Joseph Rountree Reform Trust report on ‘Power to the People: The report of power, an independent Inquiry into Britain’s democracy.’’
Financial Times, Centre Prize: Why UK political parties look more and more the same.” George Parker & Jim Pickard. 4 March 2008.
Politics.co.uk “Cameron’s ‘millionaire Cabinet’” 23 May 2010.
The Telegraph. “MP’s expenses scandal: a timeline.” www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6499657 4 November 2009.
datastore@guardian
Audit of Political Engagement 9, Part One, Hansard Society