Can Labour's Manifesto work?

Labour shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, stated that the new Labour Manifesto is a mainstream expression of the type of approach taken by the European Social Democratic parties and governments, especially in the Scandinavian countries.

Leaving aside the 21st century troubled history of the Scandinavian SD parties, McDonnell is joining a well worn tradition in his declaration. The ANC in South Africa claimed to seek exactly that course when apartheid (and the USSR) fell. Many of the early leaders of the collapsing Eastern European Soviet bloc wore the same mantle. In the mid 1970s the Common Market's interventions into Portugal and Spain were directed to the recreation of large-scale Social Democratic parties 'in the Scandinavian mode' (designed to marginalise the traditional proto-fascist right and also to temper the appetite for revolution in those countries.) In all the cases mentioned, Scandinavian Social Democracy was presented as the model that would guarantee social progress without the overthrow of the state. In each case, the state remained intact but the Nirvana of Scandinavian progress has yet to be established.

There is a discussion to be had about the high points, within the capitalist system, that Scandinavian Social Democracy actually achieved - and now the meaning of its attenuated decline. Whatever the result of that particular argument, Labour's Manifesto is certainly still worth support in many of its proposals. It is, as mainstream commentators are shouting, completely different from the Tory program. There is now a choice in Britain's General Election for the first time since the 1980s. The demand for a 'centre' in British politics, consolidated around a LibLab pact over the EU, supported by the Blaires and Paddy Ashdowns, have been ignored and rejected. These characters are waiting in the sidelines for the destruction of Labour's left leader Corbyn, to make their next move. And it will come as Britain's political system judders and creaks. Meanwhile they need to count the number of Blairite MPs that get in to the post election Parliament under the Labour banner to see if they have a potential platform of their own.

But the plans in Labour's manifesto are substantial and represent real 'inroads' into the power and the economic dominance of Capital - in the first case mainly through their tax proposals. They may be presented as a 'restoration' of previous tax regimes in different countries in times gone by, but they go in entirely the opposite direction to the destination that globalisation wants in the West. Equally, the break-up of the relentless privatisation of services is of particular outrage to the British component of the globalist carnival as Britain lives on services. The UK's economy is more reliant on the service sector than any other G7 country. 79% of UK Gross Domestic Product (GDP) came from the service sector in 2013. The percentage of workers in the service sector rose from 33% in 1841 to 80% in 2011.

Commentators and political pundits often write or say that many of the individual policies of Corbyn's Labour are popular with a large part of the electorate. But Tory leader May dominates in the polls nevertheless. Why is this? A lot of froth is spouted about the key role in the modern period of personality. May (who voted against Brexit, who vehemently denied that she would have a snap election, who reversed the main policy of her Chancellor a day after his budget) is projected as some sort of steadfast hero - but in the dwindling traditional media. Likewise, Corbyn is presented as an evil moron, without substance, because he has always stuck to his principles, but again, only in the traditional media.

The real trouble is that there is more substance to the problem of the popularity of Corbyn's Labour Party than the impact of Britain's wretched and dominant millionaire press or TV's cynical side-swipes. The credibility of political leaders is at a very low ebb - among almost all of the population with the partial exception of some of (the almost totally enamoured of Corbyn) youth.

In the first place many ordinary working class people do not believe that Corbyn's Labour could achieve the promises that the Manifesto makes. Why? For two reasons. They think three quarters of his own MPs won't let him. His party is split. Second, they know that the economic and political forces ranged against Corbyn's plans would be enormous - even while Corbyn and McDonnell are claiming the opposite in their references to a Wilson style government from the 1960s and to Scandinavian SD!

This reality was challenged when the Corbyn leadership used to speak of Labour's transformative moment under post WW2 Labour leader Attlee and when initial steps were taken to give some substantive content to his 'new kind of politics.' Without over-blowing the parallel, when Trump took on Hilary Clinton, took on his own Party, spoke over the heads of the establishment and promised to 'drain the swamp' in Washington, whatever else it was, it at least sounded as though Trump was genuinely mobilising to break the political and economic mould. For people to believe that Corbyn will genuinely be able to break the mould in Britain, then that is what the Labour leadership should say. If the Labour leadership thinks it needs a new type of politics for the majority in society to win against the super rich, then it needs to spell it out. No more Lords. No more unfair votes and bought elections. An end to the lobbyists and to ex senior MPs rolling over for their super-pension paymasters.

In that broad context, telling the hard truth about the weakness of one section of the Labour Party, will build the strength and commitment of those who want truthful politics and transformative change. The Corbyn leadership needs to tell the people that they want to vote for such change that yes, alongside a hard battle with the rich, the fight will also happen inside Parliament - and that what we now need is for working class people to make their voices heard, where they work, where they live and loud enough for Parliament to be deafened. What was the only way that Obama could have won his fully fledged plan for health care or for gun control? By activating and mobilising his support. (They were ready, but he was not.)

Of course Labour's Manifesto can happen - and much more. But neither the Scandinavian Social Democrats nor the memories of Harold Wilson can do it. Today we need a root and branch movement in society, which the Corbyn leadership should concentrate on and help to build, inside and outside Parliament, even to achieve some social democracy!