Had it even begun? I wonder how many people in the street would know what you were talking about if you mentioned Blue Labour

Lee – there was never any particular intention that they should. Perhaps because people couldn’t get past the fact that “it rhymes with New”, there was an attitude that it was a proposal for rebranding the Labour Party. Isn’t and never was – it’s a set of questions faced by the Labour Party, and a way of thinking about them.

On the substantive, I don’t think anyone involved has really said the brand was a good idea – I overestimated the willingness of party members to move beyond slogans and look at the substance of things – see for example http://theoldpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/blue-labour-and-branding-problem.html – but it was never a marketing scheme invented by a focus group. It just happened, and turned out to be a drag on the ideas.

I’m not entirely clear what Jonathan is proposing, if I’m honest. There exists a broad point of view which Blue Labour articulated. I, and a fair number of other people, subscribe to that view, whatever it is called. If you just rename it, it will forever be called “x, formerly known as Blue Labour”. Jonathan will, to those who choose not to read what he actually wrote, be “that guy that Helen Goodman says doesn’t care about rape victims”. If you don’t, it will suffer from dealing only issue by issue and lacking the coherence of factions like Progress – we can be sure the Purple Book will be much more media savvy.

Some people who are very good at using the media have had it in for Blue Labour from day one, and Maurice sometimes gives them ammunition, but looking at them, few are friends of Labour of any stripe, and those who are have proven themselves electorally toxic (the word they chose as their shared attack on Blue Labour, before anyone in it had said anything much, and which they managed to make stick).

“progressive patriotism” is an oxymoron.

If we accept that we are all citizens of the world then why should place of birth hold any great relevance other than recognising the predominant forms of propaganda prevalent in a given culture?

Our aspirations should be toward ideals – equality of opportunity, fair pay, access to health services, jobs and education, etc – not geography.

Having said that we do need to address the dire consequences of current population densities in the UK, and we should be more forthright in challenging religious ideologies that give tacit support to the mistreatment of women and gays.

It goes without saying that we need to do more to address wealth inequality as well.

Just looking at my son’s recent class photo – there is a boy who’s parents are Russian, one with a Brazilian mother, one with a Nigerian father, a boy with a Jewish father and Asian mother, oh I’m sure you get the point – I’m sure none of the other parent’s are terribly interested in my background, and I’m not that interested in theirs (although we might be from time to time providing it is an unforced sort of exchange).

So how does patriotism fit into such a complex sort of group – or more to the point why fetishise geography?

Maurice is a reader at London Metropolitan University not Middlesex.

I think Blue Labour has made an interesting and useful contribution to critiquing Labour’s approach on economic policy. However I do think its cultural critiques are/were unhelpful from a Left perspective. The dichotomy between social equality and economic opportunity/autonomy should be narrowed not widened.

Nationalism is a grand myth we could easily do without, we share land, institutions, experiences and to certain extent social history. Whether it is Birmingham or Aberdeen, it is immaterial to many. Our locality forms one part of our identity but emphasising national identity to bind people together for what purpose?

The answer to this question, reveals the political ideology of the questioner. What social problem could a “progressive” nationalism solve?

I’ve yet to see a convincing argument other than for party political advantage. Gordon Brown argued for progressive nationalism to save the union and therefore save the Labour Party from being decapitated by losing its Scottish MPs in the House of Commons.

People accept geographical legal boundaries, national identities are inherently divisive (what WE are and what THEY are not) and used to justify prejudices of others. I think it is a dead-end relic of the past and not a hope for the future.

In short Internationalist co-operation and solidarity is preferable to nationalism, “progressive” or otherwise.

As people pursue religious, political and social identities, I don’t think the state can offer a credible alternative to the chimeric options on offer from clerics and party leaders.

Well sunny If Ed doesn’t take your advice and sticks with Blue laobur, I suggest you vote liberal democrat agian at the next election like you have in the past, and then If laobur lose the 2015 election you could re infultrate us and try to oust anyone who disagrees with you and try to swing labour left agian,Because that sort of infultration never lost labour millions of votes in the 80’s did it.

What gives us the right to define “Britishness”? Culture, if it’s anything, is an expression of shared values and shared experience. I don’t see how such notions can be imposed from above, even if a plausible “definition” should arise.

In short Internationalist co-operation and solidarity is preferable to nationalism, “progressive” or otherwise.

What is this “internationalist” alternative?

National socialism.

Nice to see Ed backing the right horses, entirely consistent with his decision to keep Woolas on the front bench until he was forced to drop him.

If these ideas become mainstream within the Labour party there are many of us who won’t vote for them ever again. It’s the old canard that Labour lost because they weren’t right wing enough. Haven’t we all got tired of the same old dog whistle politics? And the assumption that all white working class people hate immigrants (they don’t).

Hope this is the end of Glassman and his ideas. How about Labour actually embraced socialism for change? God forbid.

Then there is a cultural argument. I have long argued we need to start talking about a language of patriotism, pride and national identity. More diverse societies need a social glue.
I rate you for admitting that immigration is not primarily matter of Economic benefit or dis-benefit .
You, however want to have it both ways You want to be fully English,without making any sacrifices as to your right to a more complex identity.You want to achieve that, not by integrating, but by diluting what English means to the point that its is merely “ Anyone living in England”.
Put it this way .You say you are no longer British Asian you are English.
I am not sure why I cannot call myself British Asian then ?

1 I live in the same place
2 We have a great deal in common ,
3 Ethically we are not the same but that only requires that you loosen the
meaning of the terms

So why can I not be British Asian ?

5
The lowest LP vote was 1983, at 8 and half million, which was 3 million less than 1979, from there onwards their vote share increased. By 1997 the LP, under Blair, attracted 13 and half million but the subsequent elections saw Labour’s vote share decline to 8 and half million by 2010, that’s 5million lost since Blair took the LP further right. By comparison, Foot and the left only lost 3million, therefore, if we are looking at vote share, my conclusion would be that the LP going left is significantly better than to remain/go further right.

Haven’t we all got tired of the same old dog whistle politics? And the assumption that all white working class people hate immigrants (they don’t).

While we’re getting tired of assumptions, can we tire of the assumption that immigration restrictionism implies “hatred” – or, indeed, any negative emotion – for the migrants? I mean, it makes it far easier to dismiss the views of one’s rhetorical opponents – I can empathise with that; I’ve done it too – but it’s also wrong. It is, indeed – along with “So, do you support Saddam Hussein?” – a well-poisoning classic.

I’ve no doubt that “all working class people” don’t “hate immigrants”. But most British people want less to settle here.

I see the old Internationalist Left is still the default position,. I have some respect for that its consistent at least

Out of interest, do all the internationalist posters here think that loving your family is silly? As far as I can see, caring about somebody because you happen to share a similar set of DNA is every bit as irrational as caring about a country because you were born and raised up there.

National socialism.

Nice to see Ed backing the right horse

I mention Hitler in the article, and still an idiot has to come up in the comments and mention Fascism again, just for its own sake.

@ XXX

Is anyone saying that it’s silly to care about the country in which you were born and raised? I think “caring” is the wrong word. Nobody objects to caring, it’s when you place certain things on pedestals for illogical reasons that you get called out.

The connection to the family makes a certain amount of sense, but a lot of family love is the natural result of spending a huge amount of your time with certain people. It’s unsurprising that I love the village I grew up in, just as I love the people I grew up with.

As for whether you put family and country on a pedestal, artificially raising them above all others… well, it’s natural for me to be concerned about the fate of my parents or my home town than I would be about a stranger or another place. On the other hand, I don’t know why I should feel any special concern for a distant family member I never met, or, say, Birmingham, just because they share some genes with me and exist in the same country as me, respectively.

Internationalism like many -isms has a long and varied history. The meaning has gone through changes in emphasis and usage throughout history.

It also depends from your perspective. From the two I’m most familiar with they basically agree that greater co-operation between people of different geographical units is essentially a good thing.

Short answers:

Either

a) the “classic” socialist view: the working class in each country have the same problem. So it is in their common interest to work together. Nation states aim to divide workers and so nationhood must be abolished.

OR

b) the liberal view: a species view of the human race that focuses on universal rights, shared values and aspirations. National Governments should co-operate for better economic outcomes and everyone benefits.

OR

c) Some hybrid of the two

Longer answers:

The International Working Class Men’s Association was a political association that had the aim of abolishing Capital. They differed on what would come after Capitalism but they maintained that it was in their mutual interest (and of the class they claimed to be part of) for Capital and therefore the Capitalist class to be abolished.

So for them the International was the mutual aid, co-operation and solidarity of working class people. They rejected nationalist differences of having any significance on their project (not to say they didn’t acknowledge that these differing cultures/traditions exist).

Their critique states that Nationalism reinforces these myths:

1) that workers have more in common with their bosses than their international counterparts

2) the justification of artificial borders that inhibit international co-operation,

3) of “justified privileges” based on national wealth.

All of which divides the working class and helps capitalists to manage dissent.

A liberal view, I guess determined that as a species, humans or “humanity” are essential the same. Equal and irrespective of nationhood, rights must be upheld by all. Their critique of Nationalism is that it is an ideology that inhibits this goal.

It perpetuates the view that humans in different nations are have more differences than similarities. Also economically nations are historically inimical to global trade and generally involves highly centralised management which is poor at managing wealth creation.

My view is socialist with the liberal acceptance of human rights. I reject the liberal economic argument.

@ 14:

“Is anyone saying that it’s silly to care about the country in which you were born and raised?”

Not explicitly, but it seemed like an undercurrent in some people’s posts. Maybe I’m just reading too much stuff in based on what I’ve seen on other websites, though.

“I think “caring” is the wrong word. Nobody objects to caring, it’s when you place certain things on pedestals for illogical reasons that you get called out.”

How would you define “placing your country on a pedestal”? I agree that a “My country, right or wrong”-type attitude is wrong, but some people (and again, maybe I’m just imagining it here) seem to think that any show of patriotism or expression of affection for your country is inherently ridiculous.

“The connection to the family makes a certain amount of sense, but a lot of family love is the natural result of spending a huge amount of your time with certain people. It’s unsurprising that I love the village I grew up in, just as I love the people I grew up with.”

A lot of it, but not all. Most people if they came across a long-lost brother or sister would feel more affectionate towards them than if they came across a random stranger, simply because they were relatives. Similarly, most people care about their country not just because they grew up there, but because they share a common culture, history, language and so on.

Re:the family. The (nuclear) family is a social construct, so yeah on the face of it caring about your family above and beyond anyone else is silly: other cultures (past & present) have placed above the “family” ties like kinship, tribal loyalty etc etc. Just because our world desires the family as a social unit to keep things ticking over nicely doesn’t automatically mean it’s the only possible “right” way of doing things. Only a few thousand years ago for example having multiple wives or husbands was a normal thing to do. To assume the primacy of the family is to be historically arrogant about our place in human affairs.

Just sayin’.

@ 16 XXX

“How would you define “placing your country on a pedestal”? I agree that a “My country, right or wrong”-type attitude is wrong, but some people (and again, maybe I’m just imagining it here) seem to think that any show of patriotism or expression of affection for your country is inherently ridiculous.”

I’d include that “my country right or wrong” attitude, plus “charity belongs at home”, along with any serious statement that one’s country is “better” without any solid attempt to justify it. It’s true that we have to put the UK first in some ways, because all countries act with a certain amount of self-interest, but often it’s used as an unthinking justification of behaving poorly.

If people are taking the attitude that loving your country is something you should be ashamed of, they’re acting unreasonably. It’s totally understandable to want England to win the World Cup, for example. But do bear in mind that when people start talking about the illogical nature of patriotism, that’s often in reaction to people who say “I’m right because what I want is good for BRITISH people and in line with BRITISH values” (capitals theirs).

Someone or other once said that patriotism is loving one’s country, while nationalism is hating everyone else’s – an oversimplification, but a useful one. The problem is that people will act in a horribly nationalistic and xenophobic way, then, when called out on it, pull a No True Scotsman defence and ask why it’s wrong for them to love their country.

“A lot of it, but not all. Most people if they came across a long-lost brother or sister would feel more affectionate towards them than if they came across a random stranger, simply because they were relatives. Similarly, most people care about their country not just because they grew up there, but because they share a common culture, history, language and so on.”

True. I think we’re up against the (hazy) patriotism/nationalism divide again here.

15
Excellent post

[deleted]

marc @20 – feel free to take your Hitler references to another site. I won’t be shedding a tear. don’t hit the door on the way out!

@20

You make a comment about Nazism and don’t expect to be called out for it? Bye, then.

As a floating voter, I’m afraid Blue Labour seems like everything I don’t like about Leftist politics, with an awful lot of the stuff I don’t like about small-c conservative politics thrown in too. Just my personal view.

…the working class in each country have the same problem. So it is in their common interest to work together. Nation states aim to divide workers and so nationhood must be abolished…

Well, you can do away with nationalism (in Britain, anyway) and still be divided from billions of people. Cultural perceptions override class consciousness. Not everywhere, naturally, and not for all concerns, but try and agree on common goals with a Pakistani Islamist, a Chinese statist and a Korean supremacist. It’d be an entertaining dinner party, to be sure, but not all that productive.

@20

You mad bro?

Ben Six:

Not everywhere, naturally, and not for all concerns, but try and agree on common goals with a Pakistani Islamist, a Chinese statist and a Korean supremacist. It’d be an entertaining dinner party, to be sure, but not all that productive.

I agree which is why I wrote in my first post (#4):

As people pursue religious, political and social identities, I don’t think the state can offer a credible alternative to the chimeric options on offer from clerics and party leaders.

SteveB: Cheers!

@3 “progressive patriotism” is an oxymoron.

Er, why, exactly?

Surely, as Sunny points out, policies dependent on social solidarity – welfare, the NHS, even education – are in part dependent on the idea that your neighbour’s prosperity has a direct impact upon your own.

That solidarity is much easier to build if there’s a shared national identity to build on. That doesn’t have to have anything to do with race, or birthplace, or a deep seated desire to kick the shit out of foreigners. It can be something positive.

The French left doesn’t have a problem with national pride. Nor does the American – nor, come to that, the Welsh or the Scottish. This cringe about it seems to be a peculiarly English phenomenon.

[27] “welfare, the NHS, even education – are in part dependent on the idea that your neighbour’s prosperity has a direct impact upon your own” – absolutely, but the term ‘neighbour’ is perennially problematic once we factor in notions of nationalism, a problem that cuts both ways.

Put another way I do not accept that the sort of solidarity you refer to, and which is so important, is any way dependent on accidents of geography.

Put another way I do not accept that the sort of solidarity you refer to, and which is so important, is any way dependent on accidents of geography.

In an ideal world I’d agree with you, but we don’t live in that world. I think you’re more likely to persuade people of the benefits of wealth transfers if they think the money is going to those who are, in some way, part of the same community. Appealing to a shared humanity isn’t going to cut it. Appealing to national identity can.

Sunny deserves some credit for this post overall. Pretty balanced and not shying away from the difficult question of identity .(The article in the Guardian was interesting ) I think with this question of immigration you have to think of how it works at the low community and family level Endless top down initiatives about ethnic sensitivity are implicitly always having a go at everyone else …look how bigoted you are …. look how old fashioned you are etc. ITS ALL YOUR FAULT..people just get so pissed off with it .
I think I could sign to Sunny`s idea of developing Englishness as an imagined community but there have to be demands on the incomers too. Nothing will work without some sanity and trust on the numbers, but making the country as it is work better is a good idea with benefits for us all.

what is blue labour? sort of like Blair style conservative?

Blue Labour is bound to come to nothing, as too many people will balk at the populist press ”hijacking” the story. ”Not in front of the children” seems to be the refrain.
It’s not feasable to do that much about immigration when you break it down anyway.
Cut back on asylum seekers? Naturalisation through marriage?
This ”debate” is absolutely impossible as it’s too politiscised and polarised.

Maybe it’s this kind of internet format, where you just have one or two goes to make your point amongst so many competing points of view. And people will reject things that go against their narrative, even if it makes a fair point.

If I was to bring up this clip on youtube about a really violent prison in southern California, which is divided up between ethnic gangs, it would get thrown out as being completely off topic, even if I tried to just use it as an example of things that can happen in an open society like that. In Singapore, they would not allow this kind of thing to develop in the first place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMG6HW4OYxQ

But I guess it’s too off the wall to be even considered.

Labour doesn’t need to adapt to people’s conservatism. It needs to persuade them to change their minds.

Personally I think Labour needs to be deep red, not blue. Without a sharp swing to the left, we’re still just Blairites. Where’s the commitment to even mild social democracy? We accept privatisation, anti-union laws and Thatcher-style tax policies as if they’re inevitable things we can’t change.

“but there have to be demands on the incomers too.”

My only problem with this is that those most opposed to immigration kept moving the goalposts, denying that the demands have been met, or descending into massive over-generalisations that an individual will find impossible to meet:

“you must learn english!”
“we have, often to a better standard than you”
“Get jobs!”
“asylum seekers aren’t allowed by law to get jobs. Nonetheless many work illegally or do voluntary work anyway – thus demonstrating a work ethic. For other immigrants, particularly from A8 countries, the employment rate is often higher than amongst uk born people, not to mention the number of entrepreneurs”
“stop claiming benefits!”
” actually there are far more restrictions on our ability to claim benefits than on uk born citizens. A8 nationals have to have been registered on the worker registration scheme for at least a year, otherwise we have no recourse to public funds – not even shelters for victims of domestic violence”
“You’re all criminals! obey the law”
“whilst no doubt some immigrant has committed a crime at some point, the vast majority of us have no criminal record, and have no trouble in obeying the law”
“You’re all terrorists! stop trying to destroy our way of life”
“Most of the terrorists in the UK are home grown….”

Pretty much agree I suppose. You can’t exaggerate how poisonous some of what BL have said is. But I’d hate to see Labour go back to New Labour platitudes. It’s good to see deep thinking in the Labour Party – it’s a shame it’s taken this form and been presented in this way.

Here’s something I wrote on Blue Labour in the Staggers today:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/07/blue-labour-immigration

@ 17:

“Re:the family. The (nuclear) family is a social construct, so yeah on the face of it caring about your family above and beyond anyone else is silly:”

Fortunately for my argument, though, I didn’t say “nuclear family”, just “family” in general.

“other cultures (past & present) have placed above the “family” ties like kinship, tribal loyalty etc etc.”

How exactly are ties of kinship different from family ties? And tribal loyalty is related to family loyalty, given that you’re likely to be more closely related to people from your tribe.

“Only a few thousand years ago for example having multiple wives or husbands was a normal thing to do.”

People in polygamous societies still tend to love their relatives, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here.

“To assume the primacy of the family is to be historically arrogant about our place in human affairs.”

When you can point to a society where people don’t care about their relatives any more than they care about everybody else, you might have a valid point.

@ 31:

“what is blue labour? sort of like Blair style conservative?”

Blue Labour is in many ways conservative. This makes it very different to Tony Blair, who wasn’t at all conservative, as anybody who knows what the term “conservative” actually means will be able to tell you.

9steveb, Yes labour has lost 5million since 1997 but it increased it by 5.2million since 83, and there wasn’t that much difference between 1974 and 1983 manifesto’s apart from unilateralism and leaving europe and nationalising the 25 biggest industries so you can’t compare it form between just 79- 83 but compare it to say 1966 when laobur got 13million or 1951 when laobur got 13.9 million, my conclusion by going left labour lost 5.5 million votes between 1951 and 1983

@37

“as anybody who knows what the term “conservative” actually means will be able to tell you.”

By that line of thinking Thatcher wasn’t “conservative” either. (In her defence(!) she claimed to be a “classical liberal” or something)

oh and to all your points @36

fine and dandy, but nothing you’ve said actually disproves anything I wrote.

“By that line of thinking Thatcher wasn’t “conservative” either.”

Thatcher did express some socially-conservative viewpoints; on the whole, though, she was more of a classical liberal.

“fine and dandy, but nothing you’ve said actually disproves anything I wrote.”

What was your point, then?

Blue Labour might as well join the Conservatives and have done with it. The fact that every poster so far has concentrated on the nationalistic aspects of Blue Labour and ignored their economic theories suggests that their vaguely leftish economics are no more central to their appeal than the vaguely leftish economics the EDL will espouse when pressed.

Labour needs to support the rights of workers to determine their own working conditions and to own their own means of production – and by this I mean ‘own’ it directly, not through the medium of the State. It also needs to enshrine freedom from the State in a written constitution.

It needs to learn from the Libertarian Left not ape the authoritarian populism of the Right.

42 although your right about where laobur sahould go, whats the connection you feel that Blue laobur have with the Toires, I can’t see it?

Well using Blue after Blair was not a bright idea, but small c concervatism, which part, I asked what did Blue labour think of welfare they told me Welfare reforms were needed, so that’s me out then. I asked do you think we should return to social council house building to be told no, we need to have homes people can afford, so banks then.

The NHS would always be safe under labour, would it really.

And they said labours education was the best in the world, well if thats right why are so many kids leaving without qualifications.

Blue labour or Red labour right now the world Labour is not working.

44 well said

38
The comparison I made was in reply to @5 who extrapolated that from the 80s voting pattern the LP would loose the next election if they moved left. I certainly wouldn’t use only past voting patterns to analyse the current mood of the country. I was countering one simplistic analysis with another.
However, you appear to believe that the voting patterns between 1951 and 1983 can, in some way, indicate which way the current electorate might vote, which is clearly nonsense, not least because that was a period of consensus politics. There was no movement between left and right in either major parties until after 1979.

@ XXX

so blue Labour is more conservative than Blair and also more conservative than Maggie? And there are lots of these people and Sunny and some of you lot are “Blue Labour” ? I am just asking. The new left is a confusing place, but I can see the need to be for a bit..

Planeshift -My only problem et….

“you must learn english!”- It is not true that all inward migrants have learned English we have only recently stopped broadcasting Asian BBC in a variety of foreign languages – There are three choices here
1 They learn English
2 We learn …. whatever it is .
3 We don`t speak

What is your problem ?

“Get jobs!”

The high employment levels amongst immigrants is illusory and due to the age of migrants and the inclusion of EU contract workers in the same category
( UK wages are pretty damn good in Warsaw) .The benefits claimant count is also high

“stop claiming benefits!”

Migrants disproportionately claim benefits as a result of economic class. This is not a conspiracy but as they have not paid for them this undermines the mutual and communitarian basis of the welfare state and NHS.

“Most of the terrorists in the UK are home grown….”

Most UK terrorists are indeed Home Grown in the insular Islamic communities that have failed to integrate and do not respect our way of life or even life and limb of UK citizens

46, fair point but it could be argued that labour swung to the left in teh 2 years upto 2010 when they had the 50p tax rate, and that labour swung to the left after Gaitskell death in 963 by going for higher taxes ,more union laws and that the toires swung to teh left after 1945 in accepting alot of labour polcies like the introduction of the NHS which they origianlly voted agianst

49
The period between 1945 and 1979 with regard to left/right movement can, in no way, indicate or guide what the current mood of the country is, that period involved both major parties agreeing policy. In fact in the 1951 election, the LP gained more votes than the tories but it was the tories who formed the government. Similarly, in 1974, the tories gained more votes than labour but it was the LP who formed the government. In 2010, the voters returned no overall majority, probably because they were pig-sick with labour and Brown and they didn’t trust the tories either.
However, you admit that both labour and tories went left from 1945 and both of these parties ended-up forming the government, according to your original argument of left v right, then left is the way.
What I am saying is that there is so much more needed to analyse possible future voting and winning elections than perceived left/right movement (most of the public don’t see it that way) than loosking at past voting patterns.

according to your original argument of left v right, then left is the way

UPTO 1979 defiantely, but the public had ,had enough of the post war concensus by 1979, Look at labour now the’yre more right wing (pro the state in terms of law and order power) authoritarian, like holding innocent peoples DNA ,naming people arrested and not yet found guilty of sexual offences,but even though the public use to like the Tores for being pro law and order (as they threw money at the police, despite crime rising under their watch) there’s no huge public appetite for labours views on authoritarian, dna databases etc.

surely also the fact that laobu rmanaged to win the 1974 election with 11.5million votes but the tories won the 1979 election with 13.7 million votes means that it wasn’t just labour swinging to the left that lost them votes but. that the public didn’t hold their convictions and that labour swinging to the left throughout, the post ward concensus period, that also mean tthat the left was losing labour votes and not realsing it was doing it.

@42 – If Labour don’t want every policy gone over with a microscope and sometimes sabotaged by the left, then they need to throw out the core of “Blue Labour”.