25.09.1997
Blair still on course for ‘new Britain’
Close call in Wales
Except for those whose brains have been addled by leftwing dogma (see ‘Around the left’ page 7), it is plain that the ‘yes’ votes in the Scottish and Welsh referendums amounted to a massive success for Blair, and his ‘modernising’ project in general.
Blair’s whole reputation was on the line - he gambled bravely. A ‘no, no’ - or even a ‘yes, no’ vote in Scotland - would have been a major setback. Perhaps even the temporary end of his ‘new Britain’ project. No wonder Donald Dewar threatened to resign on the spot if there was not a ‘yes, yes’ vote.
You can guarantee that Blair was not exactly delighted by the sheer narrowness of the ‘yes’ vote in Wales - which scraped in by only 6,721 votes, a wafer-thin 0.6% majority - or by the less than inspiring turnout of 51.3% (only 25% of the total electorate voted ‘yes’). Certainly not the perfect result, by a long chalk.
If Blair had managed to repeat Scotland all over again, or approximate it, then his legendary beaming grin would have been permanent for months.
The Guardian was disappointed, of course. The Welsh “whispered ‘yes’ - with a loud hint of ‘maybe’ ”. The government has “achieved a technical, rather than a moral, mandate”; it also recommended that the Tories “should now demand seats on the new commission and get stuck in at the Commons, not to sabotage the new assembly but to improve it” (September 20) - not entirely unlike Scottish Militant Labour and Socialist Party Wales, who also aim to “improve” the new assemblies. So much so, in fact, that these new bodies will actually legislate in ‘socialism’.
But we should not lose sight of the fact that it was still a victory of sorts - and, as Winston Churchill once said, a majority of one is still a majority. Therefore we should not take much notice of the nonsense being peddled in the bourgeois press about Blair’s golden days being behind him - such as The Guardian, which claimed that Blair’s “political honeymoon came to an end” last Thursday night (September 20). This Blairite organ need not worry unduly - their lord and master is still on a roll.
Naturally Ron Davies, the Welsh secretary, stated that the ‘yes’ vote last week was a “stunning” result - it means he keeps his seat in the cabinet, at the very least. Davies has been on all the bourgeois pundits’ ‘transfer list’ since he was appointed in May - primarily because he had openly called Charles Windsor “a pillock”, which at the time made him a figure comparable to the Antichrist or Fred West. How things change.
The 50.3% ‘yes’ vote, compared to the 74.3% (plus the 63.5% for tax-raising powers) in Scotland, reveals the obvious. Wales has an entirely different history to Scotland - less homogenous, and at present a less clear national identity. Unlike Scotland it has no separate legal or education system. This springs from the fact that Wales was conquered, subjugated and joined with England at a much earlier date than Scotland.
Historically, the Welsh people have been divided, and differentiated, along various lines - English speakers versus Welsh speakers, north versus south, urban versus rural, east versus west, and so on. The voting patterns reflected these conflicting loyalties and identities. Significantly, the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes cleaved neatly along east-west lines.
Thus, apart from the aberration of Pembrokeshire - which has an entirely differently history, due to it being settled by the Normans in the 12th century - all the western counties voted ‘yes’, while the eastern ones voted ‘no’. The voters in counties like Powys or Monmouthshire feel a closer affinity to people in Liverpool or Birmingham than to their fellow ‘countrymen’ in the Isle of Anglesey or Gwynedd.
This is in stark contrast to Scotland. It was only in remote islands like Skye or the Shetlands that there was a significant ‘no’ vote. This is attributable to the fact that these islanders have an entirely different culture to mainland Scotland - more Scottish-Norse than Scottish-British.
Of course, the Blairites want to press on and create London-wide and regional assembles. A white paper due next month will detail the setting up of a Greater London Authority (GLA) - even if John Prescott has reassured us that it will be “small, strategic and focused”, not like the ‘leftwing’ GLC of old. This white paper will be followed by a referendum to coincide with local elections in the 32 London boroughs next May. The Blairites hope to have the GLA up and running by the year 2000.
Prescott has insisted that legislation to establish nine regional development agencies (RDAs) will still be introduced in the next parliamentary session. Blair will appoint, not elect, people to these RDAs however. Will the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party say ‘yes’ to these super-quangos?
Ironically, the Scottish National Party has just launched a campaign for English independence - which it claims will be “good for the UK”. Alex Salmond urged people south of Hadrian’s wall to “rediscover Englishness”, and even lamented how the English were “impoverished” by a lack of nationalism. He praised the “tremendous bequest to the world in common sense government and democratic innovation” brought about the English and British imperialism. He confidently predicted that Scotland will be independent in 10 to 15 years, describing it as a “reasonable timescale” (The Observer September 21).
There are major constitutional changes afoot. Blair has an ambition to remodel Britain from above. Yet, as many pundits have pointed out - including The Observer with some degree of relish last week - this is letting the genie out of the bottle.
Blair’s plans could stumble at any stage - how better exemplified than his close shave in Wales? But for the moment at least he has no fears of a mass movement from below to challenge his scheme for a newly stabilised ‘modern’ bourgeois state.
On the contrary, those such as the SP, SLP and the SWP who aspire to lead the masses are actually welcoming his reforms as ‘progressive’ - while at the same time, in the case of the SWP, dismissing them as fundamentally irrelevant because all that matters is ‘socialism’ anyway.
Paul Greenaway