Over
the recent period, splits and divisions have opened up within sections of the
ruling class, which reflect a deepening unease over the crisis and the effects it
is having on British society. The
outspoken attack in the New Statesmen on the Coalition government by the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan
Williams, was an indication in some quarters of the effects of the austerity
programme.
Over
the recent period, splits and divisions have opened up within sections of the
ruling class, which reflect a deepening unease over the crisis and the effects it
is having on British society.
The
outspoken attack in the New Statesmen on the Coalition government by the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan
Williams, was an indication in some quarters of the effects of the austerity
programme. This was to be followed some days later by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope who claimed that
if the British intervention in Libya continues any longer then Britain could
need to deploy ships it used to defend home waters, indicating the dangerous
way in which the armed forces are being continually overstretched. This was
then followed by a briefing by Air Chief Marshal Sir Simon Bryant, who stated
that morale within the Royal Air Force was “fragile.” To add further insult to
injury, the head of the British Army, General Sir Peter Wall, announced that
the withdrawal date from Afghanistan set at 2015 was far
too premature.
All of this
comes at a very unsettling time, with growing fears of civil unrest and strikes
against the unpopular austerity policies of the government and now a situation
where the police are facing cuts of 20% to their budget. This attack on the
police has forced them to organize a protest to march through central London on
13th July. The intention is to send a clear signal to the coalition government
about the growing anger within the rank and file of the police force. Paul
Mckeever, chairman of the Police Federation, stated that the morale amongst
frontline police officers was at “rock bottom.” The last time the police
marched through central London it was against the previous Labour government in
January 2008 in a dispute that involved 26,000 police officers over not
receiving a 2.5% backdated pay rise.
Amid this
growing unrest over the austerity cuts, the government has made sure that the
monarchy will not be affected. In order to keep up appearances, the amount of
funding that Prince Charles receives has risen by nearly 18%, which works out
to be an extra £298,000. Taxpayers were however reassured by the BBC that this
rise was to cover the affairs of Clarence House as well as the whole Royal
family.
This
announcement was made at a time when some of the lowest paid workers in Britain
have only seen their pay rise by 27% over a period of thirty years, whilst the
richest 10% within society have seen their incomes rise by nearly four times
that amount during the same period. This has led to a growing gulf between the
richest and poorest within society as well as the growing class divide bought
to the fore by the on-going economic crisis. As the world economy stagnates and
inflation in Britain hits 4.5%, living standards are being undermined as the
ruling class attempt to place the full burden of the capitalist crisis onto the
shoulders of the working class.
As the Greek ruling class pass
their second round of austerity measures and rioting breaks out within central
Athens, the British prime minister, David Cameron, vents his feelings towards
public service workers and condemns the unions taking coordinated strike action
on the 30th of June. “I would say to you: these strikes are wrong …
for the good of the country. It’s the changes we propose which are right.” But
such condemnation falls on deaf years.
While Rowan
Williams the Archbishop has come out condemning the austerity agenda of the
millionaire coalition on the basis that “people did not vote for these
policies,” it is what the Archbishop has left out that provides for more
interesting reading. He has become distinctly aware of the dangers ahead. Above
all, he sees the revolutionary potential within society that has been created
by the events within the Middle East.
He goes onto
say, “Digging a bit deeper, there are a good many on the left and right who
sense that the tectonic plates of British – European? – politics are shifting.
Managerial politics, attempting with shrinking success to negotiate life in the
shadow of big finance, is not an attractive rallying point, whether it labels
itself (New) Labour or Conservative. There is, in the middle of a lot of
confusion, an increasingly audible plea for some basic thinking about democracy
itself – and the urgency of this is underlined by what is happening in the
Middle East and North Africa.”
Whilst in the
past the Archbishop has dabbled in radical fringe politics in his youth,
especially whilst studying at Cambridge, he now represents part of the
Establishment. He is expressing concerns for the future of society if it
continues on the present lines. There is a layer within the Establishment who
are concerned about the effects of the cuts on traditional “middle England”.
His concerns are also an attempt to appeal to these sections within society who
are increasing disillusioned with the traditional parties and are becoming
increasingly radicalized and becoming critical of capitalism and the market
economy. God forbid! The archbishop is also attempting to make the church
appear in touch with peoples’ problems. After all, the Church of England, the
Tory Party at prayer, is in decline. The most recent statistics for the Church
of England attendance show that despite the crisis, Sunday attendance has
dropped by a further two per cent.
The Archbishop
says very little that comprises of any real clarity in his article; rather it
feels as though he has used the opportunity to spark a debate that would create
a few media sound bites and to allow the general public to remember that the
Church of England does still exist. Whilst he loosely applies a few terms such
as “a community of communities”, he has no real answers. The more interesting
commentary came from the media barrage that followed. The Financial Times
article entitled “A pundit in purple” (9/6/11), explains:
“The Archbishop of Canterbury has every right to set
out his views on matters of British politics, as he did this week in a leader
in the New Statesman. Of course, he was not elected to office. But there is no
convention (as there is for the monarch) that the head of Britain’s established
church should stay above the political fray. Quite the reverse, in fact: as a
member of the House of Lords, the Archbishop is directly responsible for
scrutinizing government policy.”
The Financial
Times goes on to chastise the Archbishop for his criticisms of the government’s
speedy academies counter-reforms that have been proposed by Michael Gove, the
secretary of state for education, as well as the lack of any actual listening
by coalition ministers over National Health Service public “listening
exercise”:
“More glaringly,
under the British parliamentary system, it would be absurd to expect
governments to enact only policies spelt out before an election. Events, from
wars and earthquakes to hung parliaments,
have a habit of disrupting the best-laid plans. Responding to changing
circumstances in a timely matter does not reduce a government’s legitimacy. To
govern is to choose, as elected representatives soon discover.”
Recently, the
teaching union ATL has taken its first strike action in 127 years. This is a
real reflection of the groundswell of opposition to the Coalition government
from those who, at least in the past, saw themselves as moderate professionals,
rather than trade union militants. It is a sign of the times. It is clear that
those layers that would remain relatively inactive in a period of economic boom
and class stagnation are now being drawn into industrial action. They are being
drawn more closely to the more traditional working class. The more middle class
layers are becoming more proletarianised. Our archbishop is certainly aware of
this, which he sees as a dangerous development. Even “middle England” is being
drawn towards the working class. It reflects a polarization in society.
David Cameron
made his feelings towards the Archbishop unsurprisingly in much the same way as
the Financial Times did, clearly stating that the archbishop was "free to
express political views" but he "profoundly disagrees" with
them.
As the war with
Libya draws on, there is a continual danger of mission creep, as the military
call it. “We will continue our mission until our mission succeeds and Colonel
Gaddafi must get no other signal then that”, explained Dr. Liam Fox, Minister
for Defense.
Machiavelli once
commented in that, “Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you
please”, and the current wars within Afghanistan, Iraq and now in Libya are no
expectation to the rule. This statement from Fox comes days after General Sir
Peter Wall openly criticized the government’s premature deadline for bringing
troops home from Helmand province at 2015.
The last several
weeks has seen the battle lines drawn between the government and the heads of
the leaders of the armed forces, all of whom are fighting to defend their own
corners against any further reduction in MOD spending via governmental spending
cuts. In a statement to parliament the cabinet minister for the MOD, Liam Fox
estimated that the costs of the Libyan intervention could reach £260million.
This was then to be contradicted by military defense “experts” stating that his
figures bore “no resemblance to reality” and that the taxpayer bill would be
closer to £1 billion. This is at a
time when the capitalist system demands £6.2 billion in cuts to local
government.
Liam Fox showed
his contempt for the hierarchy of the armed forces that speak out against
government agenda, in much the same way the Prime Minister did with the
Archbishop of Canterbury, by stating:
“In a war you
have got to be careful of the messaging you give to the other side,” he said.
He then went onto comment that, “There is a time and a place for anyone in the
armed forces to give ministers a message and they have a much greater chance of
success in delivering it in the appropriate manner.”
In a recent
report by Lord Levene, the issue of an overhaul of MOD administration was
advocated in order to ensure that military chiefs are held accountable for
their own budgets. The Levene report has recommended the removal of the head of
the three individual service arms from the MOD defense board, to be replaced
with only the chief of the defense staff. That appears to be an attempt to make
savings and consolidate power into the office of a single chief, easier to
pressurise. It appears to be part of the strategic defense review, which will
outline the overall perspective for the future of the British armed forces. It
would seem that the heads of the armed forces will pay a heavy price for their
criticisms of the government’s austerity agenda. David Cameron made plain his
feelings: “I’ll do the talking, you do the fighting.”
Clearly, these
fractures and divisions, which have come to the surface, reveal the ferment
within the ruling establishment. They reflect different options on how to
proceed in this crisis-ridden situation and how best to take on the working
class. These differences over tactics will turn into a chasm in the future,
especially with the movement of the working class. As Lenin once explained, the
first condition for revolution is a split in the ruling class. We are as yet at
an early stage in the movement. But the storm clouds are gathering. As
Marxists, we need to draw all the necessary conclusions.
