Whether he fell, jumped or was pushed from his
yacht, Robert Maxwell is dead. Few in the Labour movement will mourn him,
although many will claim to. He was never a popular figure during his brief period
as Labour MP for Buckingham in the sixties, and he made few friends as a
businessman.
Yet many Labour politicians felt that they simply
had to get on with him. From 1984, he was the megalomaniac hands-on proprietor
of the Daily Mirror and its Sunday and Scottish sister papers - and the Mirror,
Britain's second most-popular newspaper, was Labour's only friend on Fleet
Street. The politicians believed that
Maxwell, accountable to no one, could make or break Labour and they acted
accordingly: they crawled.
How far this affected Labour policy is arguable. But
Labour would certainly have moved to the right during the eighties more slowly
without the weight of Maxwell pulling it in that direction. And some felt that
the influence of his uncritical enthusiasm for Israel on Labour's Middle East
policy was considerable.
Labour is now watching nervously as the fate of Mirror
Group Newspapers, 51 per cent of which is owned by the Maxwell family, is
decided. The assumption is that Ian Maxwell, the deputy chairman until his father's
death, will continue the newspapers' backing for Labour, but no one is sure.
There is even speculation that the Maxwell empire's debt problems will force
the sale of the family's share, perhaps to a Tory press baron, thus eliminating
support for Labour from the popular press. This very possibility should stiffen Labour resolve to
legislate to ensure press pluralism as soon as it comes to office.
Uneasy with Europe
The enthusiasm
for Europe currently
being shown by Labour stops well short of embracing the creation of a
democratic federal European government, either chosen by direct election of a
president or drawn from the European Parliament
by a prime minister who is also an MEP.
The reasons for this are multiple. In the short
term, there is no doubt that Labour's position is a simple matter of electoral
opportunism: avoiding an explicit commitment to democratic European government
avoids a damaging split in the party and does not frighten those of the party's
older supporters who dislike foreigners and believe that Britannia still rules
the waves.
At a deeper level, Labour's leaders are all politicians
who decided to make Westminster the focus of their political careers in the
belief that the government of Britain was what really mattered. They are ill at
ease with Europe and know that embracing the goal of democratic European
federal government would amount to an admission that they were wrong – something
politicians hate doing. Far better for them to pretend that an ill-defined
greater role for the Council of Ministers and other ministerial forums, along
with a small increase in the powers of the European Parliament, would suffice
to keep the EC democratically accountable after economic and political union.
In
reality, Labour's current proposals involve endorsement of plans to give more
power to Brussels bureaucrats with only the scantest thought about how to make
them more answerable to the people whose lives their decisions will affect.
They are wholly inadequate if Labour really means to "democratise"
the EC. If its rhetoric is to be taken seriously, sooner or later Labour will
have to come out in favour of a democratically accountable federal European
government.