Terrible book full of waffle and empty rhetoric. If this is the answer of Labour to its crisis, then good night…

That introduction is an awfully long-winded way of sitting on the fence…

Just look at this list of contributors

Jon Cruddas MP, Graeme Cooke, Lord Maurice Glasman, Ben Jackson , David Lammy MP, David Miliband MP, Duncan O’Leary, Anthony Painter, James Purnell,
Jonathan Rutherford, Marc Stears, Stuart White and Jon Wilson.

Blue Labour? No thanks. That’s another 15 years in the wilderness then.

Oh, gawd…

This is just the latteariat looking down from their post-ironic ivory towers, saying: “You know, most of this country’s inhabitants are bitter, reactionary bigots. So therefore, let’s pat the collective heads of these odious bumpkins and agree with everything they might say, then we’ll ride the tide back to power.” Whatever happened to having a set of considered principles and sticking to them? This is taking ‘the customer is always right’ bullshit and applying it to the electorate. ‘Blue Labour’? Might as well call it ‘Soapy Conservatism’. Or ‘bollocks’.

@ 4 Cheesy Monkey

On the other hand, what’s worse: sacrificing some of your principles to be in power, or effectively sacrificing all of your principles by sticking to them and then losing the election?

If we had a PR system, we could, in theory, have a multitude of political parties, each representing a complex and consistent set of politics (“vote Liberal Protectionist for equal rights, legalised drugs, controlled international trade and closed borders!”). We don’t, so it’s inevitable that the two big parties will have to appeal to popularism on some issues.

@5 From a voter’s point of view; The latter.
From a politician’s point of view; The former.

As a voter I’d much prefer a politician say:
“This is my position, and here is why I think you should vote for me and it…”
as opposed to the blue labour method of
“What position should I take for you to vote for me?”

It’s the utter lack of actual engagement and debate with the electorate that keeps people from even bothering to register to vote, let alone even voting.

There are so many cynics who probably haven’t even read or digested what is being said.

@ 6 Cylux

“As a voter I’d much prefer a politician say:
“This is my position, and here is why I think you should vote for me and it…”
as opposed to the blue labour method of
“What position should I take for you to vote for me?” ”

So would I, in principle. But I’d also much rather the Tories lost.

“It’s the utter lack of actual engagement and debate with the electorate that keeps people from even bothering to register to vote, let alone even voting.”

If anything, asking voters what they want sounds like more engagement than telling them what you stand for.

How many people making jibes above have bothered to read the pamphlet, out of interest?

On the other hand, what’s worse: sacrificing some of your principles to be in power, or effectively sacrificing all of your principles by sticking to them and then losing the election?

Well I guess it’s a matter or degree. The former course of action doesn’t seem to have done much for Nick Clegg’s popularity.

@9 In full fairness to myself the link seems to cut off after “By exploring these paradoxes, the” for me…
Mustn’t like iPhones, or safari. So I only had the earlier Blue Labour “let’s get onboard with those sympathetic to the EDL/BNP” to work with.

@ 10 andrew adams

“Well I guess it’s a matter or degree. The former course of action doesn’t seem to have done much for Nick Clegg’s popularity.”

I agree. A party that sticks to its guns but only gets five hundred votes nationwide isn’t going to be much use to anyone. On the other hand, if you sacrifice all the things you stand for just to get into power, there was no point you standing in the first place. So it’s a “pick your battles” scenario.

As for Clegg: I suspect what did for him wasn’t so much a close assessment of the policies he stuck by and abandoned, but the fact that he propped up a Tory government that many of his supporters didn’t want to see in power.

For a party machine as PR-aware as Labour I’m surprised they chose “Blue Labour” as the catchphrase to be spun with this stunt.

Who cares about Labour’s blue paper – hasn’t anyone worked out yet that the age of a voting democracy are over?

Democratic opinion will now be carried by boots on the street – the politicians fear nothing else.
Labour are finished, liberal democracy is finished – from here it’s fascism or revolution.

You wait until the public find out that George HASN’T fixed the economy and that line of “mess left to us by the past labour government blah blah blah” no longer washes with anyone other than the blue rinse daily mail brigade.

People will vote for any ‘easy alternative’ but don’t be surprised if Labour are back in at the next election and we carousel around until the people realise that pre-election promises by any of the 3 main parties are worth nothing.

Chaise Guevara

It’s ok to stick to your principles – as long as you know they’re right. In the case of the Economy nobody can stick to their principles as all their principles include the retention of Capitalism – and that means they cannot control the economy.

I stuck to my principles – capitalism doesn’t work – and right now I’m having my schadenfrued and spewing it all over any reformist I can find.

You cannot have principles when your fundamental basis of belief is a lie.

I think if New Labour demonstrated anything it’s that there’s no point winning the election if you just do what the Tories would do when you’re in power.

There is no easy to answer to elections, you just have to make the case for your programme, and if you lose, make the case harder next time.

I’m somewhat concerned that James Purnell, pusher for the Welfare to Work industry, is an author for this pamphlet. I’ll go see what he’s written.

So I take it no women Labour thinkers support the Blue Labour concept then!?!?!?

Well having read through all of that I can say that one single paragraph by Maurice Glasman shone out:

The Labour tradition,
alone in our country, resisted the domination of the poor by the
rich, asserted the necessity of the liberties of expression, religion
and association, and made strong claims for democratic authority to
defy the status quo. It did this within a democratic politics of the
common good. The argument of this paper is that it might be a good
idea to do it again.

Wow, there are still people around who remember that the Labour Party is actually supposed to stand for something noble, rather than a soulless focus group led marketing exercise existing for the sole purpose of winning elections! If more people remembered that then Labour may find itself able to inspire people again. Any discussions about the future direction of Labour or a way forward for the left should start there.

There was some other interesting critique about New Labour’s failings in there as well. Especially from Marc Stears and Jonathan Rutherford, But also a lot of waffle.

James Purnell’s contribution was predictably awful. Filled with dreary Blairite waffle.

So I take it no women Labour thinkers support the Blue Labour concept then!?!?!?

The book contains contributions from Hazel Blears, Sally Davison and Andrea Westall (alongside seventeen male contributors). And Hazel Blears’ chapter is pretty sceptical about the whole ‘Blue Labour’ thing (which she calls ‘radical conservatism’). So there aren’t many women taking part in this particular conversation, but there are some.

Anything associated with Purnell makes me reach for my gun.