POLITICS

Can Labour shuffle or goosestep to victory?

CHARLES MOORE

Mr Michael Meacher, Labour's spokesman on social security, was always described as 'hard Left' before he joined the shadow cabinet. Now he is credited with being semi-moderate. It is true that Mr Meacher was definitely a Bennite and now, rather less definitely, is not a Ben- nite; but with him measures of hard and soft are beside the point. First and fore- most, Mr Meacher is what, if you wanted to be kind, you would call an idealist. If you didn't want to be, you could call him a crank. Let us say that he is other-worldly.

Finding himself in the shadow cabinet, Mr Meacher has a certain worldliness thrust upon him. Whenever he makes a major speech now, he tries to remember to fill it with fearsome political attacks, rather as Mrs Shirley Williams, in search of the common touch, used to swear rather stiltedly in public. On Monday, Mr Meacher led Labour's attack on the Gov- ernment for 'dismantling the welfare state'. Dealing with some government claim, he said: '. . . that is really a rum one'. As this amiable phrase echoed in his brain, Mr Meacher appeared to reflect that he wasn't being nasty enough. Suddenly he started talking excitedly about the `Goebbels lie' which Mr Norman Fowler had been telling about something or other. The Tory ben- ches hardly stirred. Poor Mr Meacher went on a bit and then had another go. Mr Fowler's reviews, he tried to thunder, betrayed the same attitude as that of the Federation of Conservative Students, they were 'stained with the goosestep of the New Right'. MPs laughed heartily, pleased with themselves for spotting a mixed metaphor.

Poor Mr Meacher has found his own ideas stained with the soft-soled shuffle of political realism. He came up with a brilliant plan to do away with sup- plementary benefits and replace them with a New Income Protection Plan, supported by a Temporary Emergency Payments Scheme. He presented his scheme to the world last week. With typical meanness, the press noticed, and pointed out, that the Meacher Plan involved roughly halving mortgage tax relief. It seemed seconds later that Mr Roy Hattersley was complain- ing that he had known nothing of the plan, and the Labour Party was saying that Mr Meacher had been speaking for himself and nobody else.

The document, which, though rather oddly assembled, says that it is part of a forthcoming book, Robbing the Poor, pub-

lished by Spokesman Books (something wrong there — shouldn't it be Spokesper- son?). It attacks the Tory notion that benefits should only go to 'those in need', partly — quite convincingly — on the grounds that bureaucrats are hopeless at working out need and ministering to it, mainly because it rejects the categorisation of people in such terms. Instead, it prop- oses the idea of a universal benefit by right:

The idea that every citizen is of equal worth implies the idea of universal non-

contributory benefits as a right of citizenship.

This means that every member of society is recognised as making a contribution to the life of the community, whether or not they [sic] are in paid employment.

The notion of 'dependence' is swept away. There is no male nor female, Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free — just individuals making their contribution to the life of the community and getting paid for doing so. Beveridge, according to Mr Meacher, thought of need merely in terms of 're-

quirements for physiological efficiency': This is a very limited conception of the role of men, women and children in society. People are not just physical beings, they are social beings. They have obligations as work- ers, parents, neighbours, friends and citizens. Scientific observation of people's behaviour after they have experienced a drastic cut in resources shows that they sometimes act in fulfilment of their social obligations before their physical wants. A `participation' standard of income is there- fore preferable to a 'subsistence' standard.

Mr Meacher bases his schemes on the traditional socialist premise that people's dignity comes from equality and contribu- tions to a common life and culture, con- tinues in the equally respectable tradition that this should be brought about by the action of the state and concludes, by the application of his very detailed knowledge of the social security system, with a plan.

There are two points to be made about it. It is obviously, decently, carefully socialist. It is also unworkably expensive and unbelievably unenticing. The Hatters- leys will attribute this to Mr Meacher's naivety. But if they do, what other socialist notions can they bring forward which would be practical and popular?

Labour's rediscovered 'unity', the new I'll-come-quietly tone of men like Messrs Livingstone and Blunkett, the alleged isolation of Bennism and the somewhat incredible reports of the decline of Militant all reflect a decision made by party leaders which they have made many times in the past. They believe that the Government's unpopularity is their main asset, that their main task is to appear reasonably house- trained and eager to please and so to regain office. Mr Kinnock has been trying to settle certain facts about himself in the public mind. We know, for instance, that he is 'against violence' ('wherever it comes from'), and he now implies, in the case of the deliciously irregular ballot of Britain's proudest union, that he is in favour of `democracy'. Mr Hattersley promises a 'new compact' with the trade unions. The whole endeavour is to persuade people that what they might suspect about the Labour Party is not true. Yes, its constitu- tion gives huge power to union leaders; its constituency parties can command their MPs; its commitment to socialism implies higher taxes and more state control; its commitment to 'labour' implies a hopeless- ly old-fashioned view of the composition of , British society. Yes, but please ignore all that, and think how bored you are of Mrs Thatcher, and how genial Mr Kinnock would be.

Who is to say that this is not Labour's best policy? It is certainly more politic than Mr Meacher's effusions. But how does It dissolve Labour's historic problems, and' how can it persuade voters, even in the 79 seats where, in 1983, Labour was second and the Conservative majority was less than 15 per cent — let alone in enough seats to secure a Labour victory — to buy, , in 1987 or 8, an offer which they have disdained in increasing numbers since 1966?