Tale of Two Countries

Social democracy in the 1920s was a European political movement just as the green movement is in the 1990s. Bitterly opposing social democracy from the left throughout Europe were the communists and anarchists, who saw no future in the social democrats' parliamentary strategy.

In Sweden three things happened.

The hard left broke away and formed their own party.

The rural interests represented by the farmers' party decided to sign up for the social democratic project.

And the conservative party, representing capital, made two crucial decisions. They decided to do business with the social democrats rather than seek a stand-off with communism, anarchism or syndicalism...a force in Sweden in the 1920s. And they hedged their bets by funding the opposition Conservative party.

None of these things happened in England. Firstly there was no farmer's party. Disraeli had skilfully manoeuvred in the 19th century to position his 'One Nation Tory Party' as the rural party. They played their cards well and Labour was never really able to break out of its urban enclaves and capture the English countryside.

The closest they have come was in 1997 when New Labour captured the suburbs.

Secondly the hard left in Britain decided to stay within the Labour Party movement and form a party within a party. The pendulum has swung over the years between New Labour and Old Labour.

The Blair Project...and the reason he is so anxious to work closely with the Liberal Party...seeks to jettison the hard left once and for all. He is unlikely to succeed, the hard left being used to playing a long waiting game.

Thirdly the Conservative Party with its strong rural base in the south of England has continued the Disraeli policy of perpetual reinvention of itself.

The Swedish Conservative Party never needed to do so. Its paymasters were more than happy with the arrangement they had with the Social Democrats. The threat to withdraw their support was always there. And until recently that was enough.

The Social Democrats delivered a broadly acceptable capitalist agenda...behind a veneer of socialism as their critics on the left would insist on pointing out.