A change of heart for New Labour?
Last month Andrew Smith resigned from the cabinet saying he wanted to devote more time to his constituency. As a demonstration of his priorities, the very next day he was out on Blackbird Leys delivering leaflets—attacking the IWCA. Is the Oxford East MP finally having second thoughts about the wisdom of neglecting for years the estate he happens to live on? If so, it is only because the IWCA has proven that Labour can no longer take the votes of working class people for granted. So while Smith’s move may signal a change of tactics it is unlikely to ever reflect a genuine change of heart.
For proof it is instructive to examine the criticisms levelled at the IWCA in Labour’s latest leaflet—the first to be delivered outside an election period for several years.
In a letter to residents, failed Labour candidate Rae Humberstone repeats previous mischief about the IWCA, accusing us of somehow failing local people by not attending meetings behind closed doors with the police, as well as some additional nonsense about not voting at a ‘crucial meeting’ for the Blackbird Leys health centre.
This shoddy piece of propaganda is topped off by repeating yet another failed smear where Rae states, ‘I will continue to oppose their dangerous policy that local GPs should give out heroin.’
It is clearly beyond him to explain where he thinks the ‘danger’ in the policy lies, but what is most surprising about Mr Humberstone’s criticism is that it directly contradicts the policy of his own Labour Government. Only last year Home Secretary David Blunkett announced the issuing of guidelines to encourage doctors to prescribe injectable heroin for problem drug users (‘GPs to prescribe heroin for hard-core users’, The Guardian, 16 May 2003).
The IWCA’s tireless work to tackle head-on the problems caused by hard drug dealing on the estate is surely well-known by now. But we also recognise that it is common sense for GPs, in certain circumstances, to be able to prescribe heroin to addicts undergoing treatment in order to prevent them from dealing, mugging, burgling, pimping and/or prostituting themselves to get their next fix.
The fact that this particular attack on the IWCA initially appeared in an election leaflet (delivered the night before and on the morning of the election day itself) that also featured a giant-sized picture of the Labour candidate standing next to David Blunkett only underscores New Labour’s hypocrisy and sheer cynicism.
So, no change there in New Labour’s approach to Blackbird Leys. Rather than any genuine attempts to address the issues faced by residents there is just more of the same bluff and bluster coupled with snide black propaganda about the party that does consult residents about problems affecting them and does campaign to ensure these issues are dealt with.
Labour spells out its anti-working class position
However, the focus of Labour’s attack centres on the IWCA’s ‘aggressive politics of class division’. Given that the IWCA has never talked about trying to divide classes it’s clear that what we are being criticised for is simply being of and for the working class.
This speaks volumes about New Labour’s own attitude to its former constituency.
First of all it pretends as if our class no longer exists—remember Blair’s words not long after the 1997 election: ‘We’re all middle class now’?—and when it comes to actual policy this is how it acts. With their hands on the levers of power, both in government and on the council, Labour could be making a positive difference to the lives of ordinary people across the country. Time and again on a host of issues—housing, health, education and pensions—they have quite deliberately chosen not to.
Since1997 the cumulative effect has been to further enlarge the enormous gap between the really wealthy and the seriously impoverished that began under Thatcher and the Tories. So in reality it is actually Labour itself that is strengthening the economic ‘division’ between classes.
So while there may indeed have been a shift in the tactics of the Labour Party locally, there will, and indeed can never be, any genuine change of heart.
Andrew Smith may now be devoting more time to Blackbird Leys but residents can be in no doubt where his priorities lie: first to damage the IWCA; and second to hope, as a result, that his re-election as MP for Oxford East is ensured.
In short we should not expect him or his party to make any positive contribution to our lives. More than ever, as Labour makes clear every day, this is a task we need to take on ourselves.
Labourgate!
The reverse side of Labour’s leaflet states, ‘After years of campaigning … Labour has succeeded in getting gates put up around Gillians Park.’ Funny no one has heard anything about this before, and who were they campaigning against—the Labour council? In any case it was the IWCA who put the request for gates on the area committee agenda. Shame then that despite our recommendations Labour have got the wrong type of gate installed, making it difficult to take large push chairs and bicycles through the park.
Leys Independent, issue 25, October 2004
| 
